Dismissed

Divisional Manager v. R.Radhamanoharan

Madras HC18 Aug 2017CMA/38/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident case, the High Court dismissed the appellant insurance company's contention regarding the application of the multiplier method and the assessment of disability, upholding the Tribunal's award and directing payment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount with interest within six weeks.

Divisional Manager Vs R.Radhamanoharan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.08.2017

¶4

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

C.M.A.No.38 of 2006 and CMP.No.145 of 2006

¶6

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuddalore. .. Appellant Vs. 1.R.Radhamanoharan 2.N.Ramakrishnan .. Respondents Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 21.07.2005 made in MCOP.No.612 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

¶7

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents : No Appearance JUDGMENT

¶8

Challenging chiefly the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurance company has come forward with this appeal.

¶9

On 6.6.2002, at about 4.00 p.m. the claimant while travelling with his cousin

¶10

in a two wheeler along the Cuddalore-Panruti Main Road, a lorry belonging to the second respondent and insured with the appellant dashed against the motorcycle, owing to which the claimant suffered multiple injuries all over the body. For the injuries suffered in the accident, he moved the tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, as against which the Tribunal passed an award http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

for Rs.2,49,320/- directed its payment with interest at 9% p.a., and fastened the liability jointly and severally on the owner of the offending vehicle as well as its insurer, the appellant herein. The break-up of compensation on various heads is as follows :

¶13

*Heads of Compensation*	*Award Amount* *(Rs.)*
Towards permanent disability	2,16,000.00
Pain and sufferings	10,000.00
Extra nourishment	5,000.00
Transportation	1,000.00
Medical expenses	17,320.00
*Total :*	*2,49,320.00*

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had gone wrong in determining the disability of the claimant as functional disability and it should not have applied the multiplier method for determining the compensation.

¶15

Notice of this appeal has not been served by the claimant. The appeal itself is pending for 11 years. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no appeal has been preferred by the claimant as yet. Therefore, this Court opted to consider the merit of appellant's contention on its own strength.

¶16

The compensation held payable on the head of permanent disability itself constitutes Rs.2,16,000/-. For adopting the multiplier, it relied on the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor who assessed the extent of disability suffered by the

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

claimant at 40%. It may be stated that the claimant had suffered fracture of his lower part of right femur which was surgically corrected with necessary implants, owing to which, the movement of his right leg was considerably restricted. The fact that he was an agriculturist weighed with the Tribunal for opting for the multiplier method for determining the compensation. The Tribunal has notionally fixed the annual income of the victim at Rs.14,400/- and applied a multiplier of 15 and arrived at Rs.2,16,000/-.

¶20

On carefully going through the evidence, this Court finds that the approach of the Tribunal cannot be faulted as it does not disclose any error or infirmity to warrant interference.

¶21

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount determined by the Tribunal along with accrued interest, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, whereupon, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

¶23

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

N.SESHASAYEE,J

To:

The Principal Sub Judge
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Cuddalore.
2. The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court, Madras.
CMA.No.38 of 2006

¶30

18.08.2017

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

Divisional Manager v. R.Radhamanoharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manager v. R.Radhamanoharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager, Vs S.Ashok Kumar

R.Arunachalam Vs the Managing Director

Oriential Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sekar

The United India Insurance Vs Mrs S Bakyalakshmi

National Insurance Vs D. Suganathi

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs v.Ganapathy