Partly allowed

The National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Krishnaveni@Krishnaveni Ramasamy

Madras HC2 Mar 2022CMA/2013/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified a motor accident compensation award, reducing the disability assessment from 35% to 25% for mental depression and adding attendant charges. The insurer's appeal was partly allowed, lowering the total claim to Rs. 7,70,000.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed; the accident compensation amount was modified to Rs. 7,70,000, payable with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶5

C.M.A.No.2013 of 2019 & C.M.P.No.7165 of 2019

¶6

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, 1^st Floor, Niresh Complex, 910, Cuddalore Main Road, Attur Post, Salem District, Having its Divisional Office and Service Office at National Insurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Office. II, Ramakrishna Road, Opposite to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salem – 7. ...Appellant /2^nd Respondent

¶7

¶8

1.Krishnaveni @ Krishnaveni Ramasamy ...1^st Respondent/1^st Petitioner 2.R.Elavarasu ...2^nd Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 27.07.2018 and made in M.C.O.P.No.206 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem.

¶10

For Appellant :Mr.S.Vadivel For Respondents :Mr.H.Manojin Legal Aid Counsel

¶11

JUDGEMENT

¶12

The Insurance Company has challenged the award passed in MC.O.P.No.206 of 2014 stating that it is excessive and that the

¶13

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

¶14

adoption of multiplier method for a disability, which is not permanent or partial is totally erroneous.

¶15

The learned counsel would submit that excessive amount have been granted towards loss of earning capacity, pain and sufferings and towards loss of income.

¶16

The learned counsel for the claimant / respondent would submit that the claimant was working as an Admin Executive at Singapore at Advance Quality Solutions Private Limited and she has also produced her pay slip as Ex.P.34. However, since the pay slip has not been proved, the Tribunal has only fixed notional income of Rs.15,000/- taking into account the age of the injured and the same cannot be found fault with.

¶17

The learned counsel would further submit that a perusal of Ex.P.35, disability certificate would clearly show that the claimant has suffered permanent disability and therefore the Tribunal has adopted multiplier method as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶18

The accident is of the year 2013. However, the assessment of 10% disability for mental depression and insomnia appears to be erroneous. Therefore, the disability is assessed at 25% instead of 35%. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant no amounts have been given under the head of attendant charges. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has to be added under the head of attendant charges. The loss of earning capacity is reworked as below:

¶19

Rs.15,000 X 12 X 14 X 25% = Rs.6,30,000/-

¶20

The award ordered by the Tribunal below is modified as follows:

¶21

Loss of earning capacity	Rs.15,000 X 12 X 14 X 25% = Rs.6,30,000/-
For Pain and Suffering	Rs.50,000/-
Extra nourishment	Rs.25,000/-
Transport to Hospital	Rs.10,000/-
Loss of income	Rs.45,000/-
Attendant Charges	Rs.10,000/-
Total	Rs.7,70,000/-

¶22

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

¶23

The said amount is payable together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment.

¶24

8.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

SD/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶29

kan

¶30

To,

¶31

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.

¶32

2.The Secretary, The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Madras.

¶33

Copy to

¶34

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶35

+1cc to M/s.S.Vadivel, Advocate Sr,13704 +1cc to M/s.H.Manojin, Advocate Sr.13868

¶36

C.M.A.No.2013 of 2019

¶37

jp-ii[co]

¶38

srg 25/04/2022

¶39

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

The National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Krishnaveni@Krishnaveni Ramasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Krishnaveni@Krishnaveni Ramasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivegaa Arumugam Vs L.Subramania Prakash

The Branch Manager Vs Nazeerkhan

G.v.Kamalammal (Deceased) Vs Dharmaraya Pillai Thanneer Pandal

Chithra Vs Sivabakkiam

Byramma.H.R., Vs M/s.Tvs Credit Services Limited

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Krishnaveni@Krishnaveni Ramasamy