Dismissed

The Branch Manager, v. Rajesh

Madras HC12 Jul 2021CMA/472/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. Upholding the Tribunal's use of the multiplier method for a non-schedule injury, the Court found the total compensation of Rs. 8,23,602/- to be reasonable and directed direct payment to the claimant.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal order confirmed; Awards to be transferred directly to claimant via RTGS within two weeks by Tribunal.

The Branch Manager, Vs Rajesh — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.7.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.472 OF 2016 & CMP.NO.3697 OF 2016

¶6

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai-52.

¶7

...Appellant/ 2^nd Respondent

¶8

¶9

1.Rajesh

¶10

...1^st Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

2.Thimmarayappa ... 2^nd Respondents/1^st Respondent

¶12

APPEAL under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decretal order dated 11.8.2015 in MCOP.No.2101 of 2013 o the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court), Krishnagiri.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.C.Paranthaman For Respondent-1 : Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan Respondent-2 : Not ready in notice

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶16

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 11.8.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court), Krishnagiri in MCOP.No.2101 of 2013.

¶17

The Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award primarily on the ground that being a non schedule injury, the

¶18

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

¶19

Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method for assessing the compensation. They also challenged the impugned award on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is excessive.

¶20

The Tribunal, by the impugned award, directed the Insurance Company to pay the claimant a total compensation of Rs.8,23,602/- as detailed hereunder :

¶21

Head	Amount in Rs.
Loss of earning capacity	5,50,800/-
by fixing monthly income of Rs.6,000/- and
disability at 45% and
adopting the multiplier 17
Partial loss of income	36,000/-
for at least six months
Pain and suffering	50,000/-
Medical expenses	91,802/-
Future Medical expenses	40,000/-
Nutrition and Transportation	20,000/-
Attender Charges	10,000/-
Discomforts and loss of amenities in life	25,000/-

¶22

The first respondent herein/claimant sustained the following injuries as a result of the accident on 14.5.2007 caused by a vehicle owned by the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein.

¶23

The first respondent herein/claimant also underwent several surgeries and screws had also been fixed on his body.

¶24

Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant filed nine documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and two witnesses were examined on his side namely the first respondent herein/claimant

¶25

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

¶26

himself as PW1 and one Dr.Devendiran as PW2. The discharge summaries issued by the hospital namely Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 would reveal that the first respondent herein/claimant was hospitalized for a long period of time. The first respondent herein/claimant was a mason by profession. Before the Tribunal, the age, avocation and the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent herein/claimant have also not been disputed by the appellant – Insurance Company.

¶27

After giving due consideration of the nature of injuries referred to supra, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier method for the purpose of assessing the compensation to the first respondent herein/claimant. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method for the purpose of assessing the compensation is rejected by this Court. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads are also not excessive as alleged by the appellant and the total compensation amounting to Rs.8,23,602/- determined by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be exorbitant.

¶28

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that there is no merit in this appeal.

¶29

Accordingly, the above civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.

¶30

It is made clear that the pay and recovery right has already been granted to the appellant by the Tribunal and the same is hereby confirmed by this Court.

¶31

At the time of admission of this appeal, this Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire award amount together with accrued interest thereon. In the light of the above order, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount lying to the credit of the claim petition together with accrued interest directly to the bank account of the first respondent herein/claimant through RTGS within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar(R)

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

¶40

(Special Subordinate Court), Krishnagiri.

¶41

+1cc to Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan, Advocate, S.R.No.32973

¶42

+1cc to Mr.C.Paranthaman, Advocate, S.R.No.32630

¶43

CMA.No.472 of 2016 & CMP.No.3697 of 2016

¶44

PL(CO) CS/18/11/2021

¶45

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

The Branch Manager, v. Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murugan, Vs Themanaging Director Tnstc., Villupuram

K.Nallamuthu Vs Thangavelu

Karuppa Gounder(Died) Vs Nanjammal

Bajaj Allianz General Ins., Co., Ltd., Chennai Vs D. Priya

1.MALIN Bi Vs 1.K.P.S Mani

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Govindan