Partly allowed

Kumar, v. Muruga Kannan

Madras HC10 Jul 2018CMA(MD)/87/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court increased the monthly income estimate used for loss of earning capacity calculations and added a sum for permanent disability based on specific precedents, raising the total to Rs. 22,05,920 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 22,05,920/- with 9% interest; impugned award allowed in part; appeal allowed in part.

Kumar, Vs Muruga Kannan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU CMA(MD)No.87 of 2015

¶5

Kumar

¶6

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1)Muruga Kannan

¶9

2)TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Manager, Peninsula Corporate Park, Piramal Tower, 9^th Floor, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lowere Parel, Mumbai-400 013.

¶10

... Respondents/Respondents

¶11

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2014 made in MCOP.No.518 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Court), Tirunelveli.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvakumaran For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.19,03,080/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2014 made in MCOP.No.518 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Court), Tirunelveli.

¶15

2.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that due to the accident, the appellant/claimant sustained crush injury which resulted in amputation of left leg above knee. He further submitted that prior to the accident, the appellant was working as a Contractor in Public Works Department and earned Rs.30,000/- per month, but in the absence of proof, the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs.7,500/- per month. According to the counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.8,500/- as per the Supreme Court judgment in N.Suresh vs. Yusuf Shariff reported in 2012 (2) TN MAC 617(SC) . Further, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards permanent disability as per the judgment of this Court in Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Arockiaraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 669(DB). Except the above, the award under other heads are not disputed.

¶16

¶17

3.A person working as a Contractor in Public Works Department would certainly earn more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, relying on the judgment in N.Suresh's case(supra), this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.8,500/per month. After computing annual income, applying 14 multiplier, the loss of earning capacity due to 88% disability works out to Rs.12,56,640/-(8500x12x14x88/100). Apart from the above, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded towards permanent disability as per the judgment of this Court in Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Arockiaraj reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 669(DB). Except the above, the award under other heads are confirmed. Accordingly, the total compensation is modified and apportioned as hereunder:-

¶18

= Loss of earning capacity Rs.12,56,640/= Permanent disability Rs. 2,00,000/= Transportation Rs. 10,000/Nutrition = Rs. 15,000/= Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/Pain and suffering = Rs. 50,000/Loss of amenities = Rs. 1,00,000/= Medical expenses Rs. 3,61,550/Fixation of artificial leg = Rs. 2,07,730/-

¶19

Total = Rs.22,05,920/(Less)Amount awarded by the Tribunal = Rs.19,03,080/-

¶20

Enhanced compensation = Rs. 3,02,840/-

¶21

4.Altogether, the appellant is entitled to Rs.22,05,920/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2^nd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount with interest, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal.

¶22

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

¶29

The Special Sub Judge, Special Sub Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.T.Selvakumaran, Advocate Sr.No.72443 +1cc to Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate Sr.No.72205

¶31

BALA

¶32

VB/KAK/SAR1/23.10.2018/3P/4C

¶33

CMA(MD)No.87 of 2015 10.07.2018

¶34

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

Kumar, v. Muruga Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar, v. Muruga Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs B. Mahendran

G. Narayanasamy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs M.Kaliselvan

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Palani

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Sankaran

Balasubramanian Vs Krishnasamy