Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai v. S.Ravi Kumar

Madras HC18 Aug 2020CMA/1515/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant Insurance Company appealed the Tribunal's award for motor accident injuries. The Court held the Tribunal erred in ignoring reimbursed amounts. The award was modified, reducing compensation for medical expenses and loss of earning, and the appeal was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; award modified and reduced to Rs. 3,71,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.; apportionment of heads of compensation specified.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai Vs S.Ravi Kumar — Insurance | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1515 of 2016

¶6

and C.M.P.No.11579 of 2016

¶7

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims Office, Silingi Building, No.134, Greams Road, Chennai-6 ...Appellant

¶8

/versus/

¶9

1.Dr. S.Ravikumar

¶10

2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, South Chennai, Pudupet, Chennai-600 002. ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Decree and Judgment of the II Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.1918 of 2013 dated 02.11.2015.

¶12

For Appellant : Mrs.R.Vijayakamala For R2 : Exparte For R1 : Mr.K.Suryanarayan For M.Swamikannu

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶15

The Insurance Company who is the respondent in the claim petition is the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, Chennai, appeal is filed challenging the quantum.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶17

It is a case of injury sustained by a medical professional in the road accident, whereby he has sustained

¶18

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

¶19

ligament tear, which is subsequently reconstructed. Having been employed in a hospital drawing gross salary of Rs.81,000/-, he was in the hospital for two months for treatment and lost his income besides medical income. Hence claimant has made a claim of Rs.16,00,000/- against the Corporation of Chennai, the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company which are insured the vehicle.

¶20

The Tribunal on considering the disability certificate, discharge summary and the salary certificate has awarded a sum of Rs.5,71,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶21

In this appeal, the Insurance Company has contended that without any medical bill to support the claim, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas Ex.P-6, the Mediclaim Settlement indicates that the total medical expenses incurred by the claimant is only Rs.1,12,455/- and the same was reimbursed and under the heads of medical expenses, the Insurance Company need not pay any compensation to the appellant. Likewise, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the gross salary of the claimant was Rs.81,000/- and after statutory deduction his take home salary is about Rs.50,000/- and also there is no evidence to show that during the medical leave his salary was not paid by the employer. Therefore, it is contended that the Tribunal ought not to have award compensation under the head of loss of income during the treatment period.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Mediclaim reimbursement was not 100% of the expenses incurred. Within the parameter of the insurance Mediclaim Policy, the claim was restricted to Rs.1,12,445/- and only to that extend was reimbursed. The claimant is the doctor by profession. His loss of income during the treatment period has been rightly considered by the Tribunal while awarding Rs.1,60,000/-.

¶23

On perusal of the record and on hearing the submissions of the learned counsels, this Court finds that the Tribunal while fixing the medical expenditure at Rs.2,00,000/ought to have taken note of the amount reimbursed under the Mediclaim, which the Tribunal has failed. Hence what amount has been reimbursed under the medical expenditure, the Insurance Company need not pay. Similarly, the loss of earning during the period of treatment, the claimant has not placed any record to show the salary was denied by the employee. During that period he was on medical leave and naturally salary would have been paid. The only loss of income can be presumed is in the income through private consultation, if any. Hence, this Court finds that it is sufficient to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the

¶24

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

¶25

head medical expenses and a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the heads loss of earning during the period of treatment. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.3,71,500/as under:-

¶26

Transportation, nourishing food and Rs. 20,000
miscellaneous expenditure
Medical Expenses Rs.1,00,0
00
Attender charges Rs.
1,500
Damages for pain, suffering and Rs.
trauma 50,000
Disability Rs.
90,000
Loss of earning during the period Rs.
of treatment 60,000
Loss of amenities Rs.
50,000
Total Rs.3,71,5
00

¶27

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The claimant/1^st respondent is permitted to withdraw the modified amount less the amount already withdrawn. The Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount if any on filing appropriate petition.

¶28

With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

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

¶33

rpl

¶34

¶35

The II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. C.M.A.No.1515 of 2016 vsn II[co] srg 25/01/2021

¶36

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

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai v. S.Ravi Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai v. S.Ravi Kumar

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

Thiruverkadu Municipality Vs Central Govt. Employees

The Collector of South Vs Arulsami

Easwari Vs Papathi

Nagendran Vs Rajan

Pandurangan Vs Sampath

Metropolitan Transport Vs Vijayalakshmi