M/S.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R.Vidhya

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2021

¶6

M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Reliance House, No.6, 6th Floor,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006.

¶7

 .. Appellant/2nd Respondent

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.R.Vidhya

¶10

.. 1st Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

2.Amada Soft India Private Limited,
No.54/55, North Usman Road,

¶12

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

¶13

.. 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent

¶14

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
27.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P. No. 351 of 2013 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For R1 : Mr.R.Thirugnanam
For R2 : Set Exparte

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

S. KANNAMMAL, J

¶19

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in and by the award dated 27.02.2020
made in M.C.O.P. No. 351 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the
appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal
challenging the quantum of compensation.

¶20

2. On 17.10.2010 at about 16.30 hrs when the claimant was
traveling in the car bearing registration number TN 09 AV 2920
at G W T Road, Opposite to Nokia Company, C.R.P Chatram,
Sriperumbudur, proceeding towards Chennai, the same was driven
in a rash and negligent manner and at the time front left tyre
of the car suddenly burst out due to which, the car hit against
the stationary lorry bearing registration No.TN 21 AC 4380 and
the claimant sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the car. Hence the
claimant/first respondent herein filed the claim petition in
M.C.O.P. No.351 of 2013 against the appellant and second
respondent claiming a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- as compensation.

¶21

3. The claim petition filed by the claimant resisted by
the appellant/Insurance Company disputing the manner of
accident, the nature of injury, the alleged loss of earning
capacity and also disputed the quantum of compensation sought by
the claimant under various heads.

¶22

4. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the averments
in the claim petition, on the side of the claimant P.W.1 to
P.W.4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P23 were marked. The
disability certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board to
the claimant/ petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.351 of 2013 was marked as
Ex.C.1. On the side of respondents, no oral or documentary
evidence was adduced.

¶23

5. The Tribunal after analyzing the entire evidence
available on record came to the conclusion that the accident was
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the car and passed an award for sum of Rs.31,24,700/- and
directed the Insurance Company/Insurer of the offending vehicle
to pay the same with interest at 7.5% per annum.

¶24

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

¶25

6. We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused
the materials placed on record. The Tribunal, on appreciation of
the oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation under
various heads as under.

¶26

`Sl.No`	`Head under which the` `amount is awarded`	`Amount awarded by` `the Tribunal(in` `Rs.)`
`1`	`Pain and Sufferings`	`Rs.50,000/-`
`2`	`Extra Nourishment`	`Rs.50,000/-`
`3`	`Loss of earning`	`Rs.24,19,200/-`
`4`	`Medical Expenses`	`Rs. 4,19,515/-`
`5`	`Loss of Amenities`	`Rs. 50,000/-`
`6`	`Attender Charges`	`Rs.50,000/-`
`7`	`Damages to cloths`	`Rs. 1,000/-`
`8`	`Future Medical Expenses`	`Rs.70,000/-`
`9`	`Transportation charges`	`Rs.14,905`
	`Total`	`Rs.31,24,620/-` `rounded off to` `Rs.31,24,700/-`

¶27

7. Though very many contentions were raised in the appeal
filed by the appellant, the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company mainly objected to the percentage of
disability taken by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation.
The learned counsel would submit that though the Medical Board
has given the disability certificate for 40%, the Tribunal has
taken 70% disability. Since the objection is only with regard to
the percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal, we are not
inclined to going to the other aspects. In this context, we are
fortified by the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the
case of Ajay Kumar Vs.Raj Kumar reported in 2011 ACJ.

¶28

8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the
other hand, supported the judgment and decree passed by the
Tribunal as fair and reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶29

9. On careful perusal of Ex.C.1, the Regional Medical
Board issued disability certificate for 40%. But the Tribunal
without assigning any valid reason observed that 40% disability
of the petitioner will affect his avocation upto 70% and thereby
fixed the disability of the petitioner at 70%. When the Regional

¶30

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

¶31

Medical Board itself has examined the petitioner and assessed
the percentage of the disability of the petitioner at 40%, 70%
disability fixed by the Tribunal for awarding compensation
towards loss of earning capacity is unsustainable which needs
interference.

¶32

10. The learned counsel for the appellant would also
submit that the Tribunal has awarded 50% towards future
prospects instead of 40%. Following the decisions of Supreme
Court, we are of the view that the award of 50% towards future
prospects is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is modified as
40% towards future prospects instead of 50% as taken by the
Tribunal. Except the above said modifications, the award passed
by the Tribunal under various heads are confirmed.

¶33

11. Thus taking a monthly income as Rs.12,000/- and
future prospects as 40% would comes to Rs.6,800/-. Annual Income
comes to (Rs.6,800x12=2,01,600/-), applying multiplier '16' and
taking 40% for disability, the loss of earning comes to
Rs.12,90,240/-(2,01,600x16x40%).Accordingly,thisCivil

¶34

Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed. No costs. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:

¶35

`Sl.No`	`Head under` `which the` `amount is` `awarded`		`Amount` `awarded by` `the` `Tribunal(in` `Rs.)`	`Amount` `awarded by` `this` `Court (in` `Rs.)`	`Award` `confirmed` `or enhanced` `or granted`
`1`	`Pain` `Sufferings`	`and`	`Rs.50,000/-`	`Rs.50,000/-`	`confirmed`
`2`	`Extra` `Nourishment`		`Rs.50,000/-`	`Rs.50,000/-`	`confirmed`
`3`	`Loss` `earning`	`of`	`Rs.24,19,200` `/-`	`Rs.12,90,24` `0/-`	`reduced`
`4`	`Medical` `Expenses`		`Rs.` `4,19,515/-`	`Rs.4,19,615` `/-`	`confirmed`
`5`	`Loss` `Amenities`	`of`	`Rs. 50,000/-`	`Rs.50,000/-`	`confirmed`
`6`	`Attender` `Charges`		`Rs.50,000/-`	`Rs.50,000/-`	`confirmed`
`7`	`Damages` `cloths`	`to`	`Rs. 1,000/-`	`Rs.1,000/-`	`confirmed`

¶36

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

¶37

8Future Medical Rs.70,000/-Rs.70,000/-confirmed
Expenses
9Transportation Rs.14,905Rs.14,905/-confirmed
charges
TotalRs.31,24,620Rs.19,95,76Reduced by
/- rounded 0/- rounded Rs.11,24,70
offto offto 0/-
Rs.31,24,700Rs.20,00,00
/-0/-

¶38

12. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with
interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.351 of 2013. On
such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to
withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, less
the amount already withdrawn if any, by filing necessary
application before the Tribunal. The appellant/ Insurance
Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount, if any lying
in the deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.351 of 2013, if the
entire amount has already been deposited.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Assistant Registrar(J)

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

mpa

¶44

To

¶45

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶46

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Records Section, High Court, Madras.

¶47

+1cc to Mr.R.Thirugnanam, Advocate, S.R.No.28040

¶48

+1cc to Mr.S.Arunkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.28210

¶49

CMA.No.711 of 2021

¶50

PP(CO)

¶51

RLP(12/11/2021)

¶52

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

M/S.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.Vidhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.Vidhya

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

C.Murugesan Vs S.Hariharan

A.Praveenkumar Vs P.Janaki

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Muniyamma

V.Malar Vs Psb Poly Technic College

M/S Gammon India Limited Vs v.Lawrance

M/S.R.S.Development and Construction Vs M/S.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.