Partly allowed

National Insurance Company v. Saravanan

Madras HC24 Feb 2021CMA/2209/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court found no evidence of loss of future earning capacity to justify multiplier. Reduced compensation from Rs.3,84,324 to Rs.2,00,000 using fixed rates.liable to deposit modified amount.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation reduced from Rs.3,84,324 to Rs.2,00,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a. Appellant to deposit balance within six weeks.

National Insurance Company Vs Saravanan — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.02.2021

¶2

C O R A M

¶3

 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICED. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶4

C.M.A.No.2209 of 2014

¶5

The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Manager,
Divisional Office, 2nd Floor,
Balaji Towers,
No.11, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem – 636 007.

¶6

 ... Appellant / 2nd Respondent
Vs.

¶7

1.Saravanan

¶8

 S/o.Chettiar ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner

¶9

2.Ramakrishnan
 S/o.Rathinam... 2nd Respondent / 1st Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree
dated 03.09.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2011 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge,
Dharmapuri District.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.K.Padmanabhan

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.M.Selvam [for R1]
 R2 – Notice unserved

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal
against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2013 made in
M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri District.

¶15

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the second respondent was set exparte.

¶16

3. The case of the first respondent/claimant is as
follows:

¶17

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

¶18

On 08.10.2010 the first respondent/claimant was
proceeding in his Bajaj Discover bearing Registration No.TN-24-
H-9496 from Krishnagiri to Pananthoppu village. While he was
riding his bike on the left side of the road nearing Krishnagiri
to Rayakottai main road near court campus, at that time, a TATA
Indica Car bearing Registration No.TN-30-AB-6904 driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
firstrespondent/claimant.Duetothatthefirst
respondent/claimant sustained injury on his left knee and
sustained fracture of tibia and fibula on the left leg. The
accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the TATA Indica Car. After the accident, the
first respondent/claimant was taken to the Government Hospital,
Krishnagiri and admitted there as an in-patient. Later he was
taken to Sparsh Hospital, Banglore and admitted there as in-
patient and operations was conducted on his knee. Still he is
taking periodical treatment in the above said Hospital. Due to
the accident the first respondent/claimant had sustained
grievous injuries and permanent disablement. Krishnagiri police
registered the case against the driver of the Car in
Cr.No.578/2010 under Section 279, 337 of IPC. At the time of
accident, the first respondent/claimant was working as a mason
and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. Since the first
respondent/claimant suffered permanent disability, he is not
able to carry on his avocation as he was doing before. Hence,
the first respondent/claimant filed a claim petition seeking
compensation of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for the injuries suffered
by him in the accident.

¶19

4. Resisting the claim made by the first
respondent/claimant, the Appellant/Insurance Company has filed a
detailed counter statement inter alia stating that the accident
did not occur in the manner as projected by the first
respondent/claimant. They had also denied the occupation and
income of the first respondent/claimant. Thus, they prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.

¶20

5. Before the Tribunal, to prove his case, the first
respondent/claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one
Dr.Krishnakumar was examined as P.W.2 and 8 documents were
marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.8. On the side of the
appellant/Insurance Company, none were examined and no exhibits
were marked.

¶21

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

¶22

6. On appreciation of materials, the Tribunal arrived at
a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Indica Car bearing
RegistrationNo.TN-30-AB-6904andheldthatthe
appellant/Insurance Company, as insurer of the said vehicle, is
liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.3,84,324/- as compensation. The break-up
details are as follows:-

¶23

`Sl.`	`Compensation awarded`	`Amount`
`No.`	`under the head`	`(in Rs.)`
`1`	`Loss of income`	`3,18,240.00`
`2.`	`Transportation`	`5,000.00`
`3.`	`Pain and Suffering`	`10,000.00`
`4.`	`Nutrition`	`5,000.00`
`5.`	`Medical Expenses`	`46,084.00`
	`Total`	`3,84,324.00`

¶24

The said sum was directed to be paid together with interest at
7.5% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of
realization. Challenging the same, the appellant/Insurance
Company has filed the present appeal.

¶25

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Companyandthelearnedcounselforthefirst
respondent/claimant.

¶26

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
contended that the first respondent/claimant has suffered 40%
disability in the accident. The Tribunal has awarded
compensation by adopting multiplier method. According to the
Appellant/Insurance Company multiplier cannot be adopted, in the
present case, to award the compensation to the appellant.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company, the first respondent/claimant has not placed any
material or evidence to establish that due to the said injury,
there is a loss of future prospects and income. Unless the first
respondent/claimant has established that due to the injuries
sustained in the accident, he has suffered loss of future

¶27

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

¶28

prospects, the application of multiplier is unwarranted.

¶29

9. Learned counsel fairly submitted that a reasonable
compensation amount may be fixed based on the disability
suffered by the first respondent/claimant. Therefore, the said
award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.

¶30

10. Learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant
submitted that the first respondent/claimant has suffered 45%
disability in the accident and he was unable to walk, stand and
do work due to the accident. The first respondent/claimant was a
mason and he is suffering due to the said disability. In fact,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much on the
lower side and hence, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶31

11. This Court has considered the rival submissions and
perused the materials on record.

¶32

12. On perusal of the materials, this Court finds that
the first respondent/claimant suffered 45% disability as per
evidence of P.W.2, Doctor. The said assessment was accepted by
the Tribunal. There is no dispute with regard to the permanent
disability suffered by the first respondent/claimant. The
question that arises for consideration is that whether the
application of multiplier, in the present case, is justifiable?

¶33

13. Learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant
submitted that the claimant had suffered 45% disability due to
the accident. He was doing mason work. Therefore, due to the
said accident his future employment is bleak. Therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier method for the loss
of future earning capacity of the first respondent/claimant.

¶34

14. According to the first respondent/claimant, he was
working as a mason at the time of the accident. P.W.2, Doctor,
was examined on the side of the first respondent/claimant. The
first respondent/claimant had suffered 45% disability due to the
said accident. In the absence of any evidence before the
Tribunal to show that due to the said disability the first
respondent/claimant is unable to carry on his avocation as he
was doing before and no other supporting evidence also placed
before the Tribunal.

¶35

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

¶36

15. In support of the claim for future loss of earning
capacity of the first respondent/claimant, on perusal of the
records, there is no specific evidence adduced on the side of
the first respondent/claimant to prove that there is future loss
of earning capacity due to the said injury caused by the said
accident. Therefore, there is some force in the contention of
the appellant/Insurance Company that the said multiplier adopted
by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Taking into consideration the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar
and Another [2011 (1) SCC 343], this Court is of the view that
the present case does not warrant application of multiplier as
the first respondent/claimant has not established that he
suffers loss of future prospects and finds it difficult to carry
on his avocation.

¶37

16. The first respondent/claimant has not satisfied the
aforesaid criteria as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Hence, this Court has come to the conclusion that the Tribunal
has wrongly adopted the multiplier method to determine the
compensation amount to the first respondent /claimant. No doubt
that the first respondent/claimant is entitled for the
compensation amount for the disability suffered in the said
accident. With regard to this aspect, P.W.2, Doctor, has given
evidence that the claimant suffered 45% disability due to the
said accident. By taking note of that fact, this Court fixes at
the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percentage to be calculated for
arriving at the compensation for disability and it comes to
Rs.90,000/- under the head for Permanent Disablement” and the
other heads require enhancement of amounts to the first
respondent/claimant. Thus this Court calculates the compensation
under various heads as follows:-

¶38

`Sl.No`	`Compensation awarded`	`Amount`
`.`	`under the head`	`(in Rs.)`
`1.`	`Disability 45%`	`90,000.00`
`2.`	`Medical Expenses`	`46,084.00`
`3.`	`Pain and Suffering`	`20,000.00`
`4.`	`Nutrition`	`10,000.00`
`5.`	`Attendant Charges`	`5,000.00`
`6.`	`Transport`	`10,000.00`

¶39

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

¶40

7.
8.

¶41

`Sl.No`	`Compensation awarded`	`Amount`
`.`	`under the head`	`(in Rs.)`
`7.`	`Loss of Income`	`9,000.00`
`8.`	`Loss of Amenities`	`10,000.00`
	`Total`	`2,00,084.00`

¶42

17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed, the total compensation of Rs.3,84,324/- awarded
by the tribunal is reduced to Rs.2,00,084/- round off to
Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶43

18. The appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit the
modified compensation amount, as awarded by this Court along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit, 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 being made,
the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the
modified amount by filing appropriate application before the
Tribunal. No costs.

¶44

 Sd/-

¶45

 Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

 Sub Assistant Registrar
bri

¶48

To

¶49

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge,

¶50

Dharmapuri District.

¶51

2.The Section Officer,

¶52

V.R.Section, High Court,

¶53

 Madras.

¶54

+1cc to Mr.M.Selvam, Advocate, S.R.No.11612

¶55

C.M.A.No.2209 of 2014

¶56

RLD(CO)

¶57

SB(21/10/2021)

¶58

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

National Insurance Company v. Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company v. Saravanan

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 Managing Director Vs Tmt. Kalpana

Chinnappa Chetty Vs Raghupathy Gowda

T.S.Pradeep Vs the Managing Director

M.Prema Vs K.Balasundaram

The Branch Manager Vs Shanthi

Manini Vs M/S Paramount Heavy Carriers