Dismissed

The General Manager v. Karunakaran

Madras HC12 Jul 2018CMA(MD)/516/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by the Transport Corporation against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court held that while methodological errors (multiplier vs. per-cent) and quantum adjustments made by the court would have increased compensation, the overall sum was too low to warrant interference in an appeal filed by the insured party. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal award confirmed; Respondent to deposit award amount with interest and costs.

The General Manager Vs Karunakaran — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.07.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2018 and C.M.P(MD)No.6085 of 2018

¶7

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Appellant/Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Karunakaran ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

PRAYER :- Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2013, dated 27.10.2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Paramakudi.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.P.Prabhakaran

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Paramakudi, in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2013, dated 27.10.2017.

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant / Transport Corporation and perused the records carefully.

¶15

By consent, this civil miscellaneous appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. Notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as no adverse order is going to be passed in this civil miscellaneous appeal.

¶16

It is a case of injury. The accident occurred on 21.09.2010 and the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,59,054/-, as compensation and aggrieved over the same, the appellant / Transport Corporation is on appeal before this Court.

¶17

The manner of the accident as well as the liability are not disputed, however, the quantum is disputed.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. On a perusal of record, it is seen that the claimant, in consequence to the accident in question, sustained grievous injuries

¶19

¶20

in head and multiple fractures in left hand, left shoulder, left ankle, for which, he underwent several surgeries and in total, 60% disability was assessed by the Doctor, which was proved before the Tribunal. It was discussed elaborately at paragraph No.8 of the impugned award. It is seen that the claimant was about 20 years old at the time of accident and was doing I.T.I. (Electrician). With 60% disability, it is hard for anyone to resume normal work activities. For his remaining life period, the claimant has to live with this pain, which can never be compensated in terms of money. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards disability, by awarding Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. Going by the nature of injuries, according to this Court, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier method, instead of awarding Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability.

¶21

It is also seen from the records that a sum of Rs.50,000/was awarded towards pain and sufferings, which, in my considered opinion, is very very meagre, comparing to the affliction faced by the claimant.

¶22

However, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant / Transport Corporation, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of future earning capacity.

¶23

It is a simple math that by adopting multiplier method for calculating compensation towards disability; enhancing the compensation towards pain and sufferings and reducing the compensation towards future earning capacity, the overall compensation will be on the higher side. Since the appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶24

In view of the foregoing discussions, this civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. The award passed by the tribunal stands confirmed. The appellant / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest @ 7.5% and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited, if any. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, without filing any formal application. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AD-II)

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

¶29

¶30

1.The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Paramakudi.

¶31

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2 Copies)

¶32

+1cc to Mr.P.Prabhakaran, Advocate, SR.No.72634.

¶33

C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2018 12.07.2018

¶34

¶35

RAM/PN/SAR 2/26.07.2018/3P/5C

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The General Manager v. Karunakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager v. Karunakaran

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

National Insurance Company Vs Balasubramanian

R.Vinoth Kumar, Vs the Managing Director

M/S. Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd., Vs D.Saravanana Murugan

Minor v.Vignesh Mani Vs P.S.Kesava Manohar

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs M.Balakrishnan

M. Seethai Vs the Secretary