Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. G.Baskar

Madras HC18 Nov 2024CMA/1613/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appeal against motor accident award. Court reduced disability from Tribunal's 40% to the Medical Board's 30%, recomputed permanent disability compensation with multiplier 14, added attender charges and loss of earnings during treatment, deleted extra nourishment and cut transport charges, reducing total compensation from Rs.32,54,000 to Rs.26,91,000.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; award reduced from Rs.32,54,000 to Rs.26,91,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum, payable within two months, with proportionate costs.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs G.Baskar — Insurance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.No.1613 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

C.M.A.No.1613 of 2022

¶7

United India Insurance Co.Ltd, having its Divisional Office at No.1171, Muthiah Complex, Erode 638 011.

¶8

..Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.G.Baskar 2.R.Karuppasamy 3.G.Lakshmanan

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 against the Award and decree dated 27.08.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.01 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Erode.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar

¶14

For 1^st respondent : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

¶15

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page 1/8

¶18

C.M.A.No.1613 of 2022

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

(The order of the Court was made by J.Nisha Banu,J.)

¶21

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance

¶22

Company, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.362 of 2015, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Erode.

¶23

The Insurance Company is the Appellant; 1^st respondent is the

¶24

claimant; 2^nd respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle and the 3^rd respondent is the owner of the vehicle.

¶25

The 1^st respondent viz., Mr.G.Baskar, victim, has filed the said claim petition before MACT, Erode, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the injury sustained due to the accident that took place on 27.12.2014.

¶26

The case of the claimant/petitioner is that on 27.12.2014 at about 11.00 am when he was standing with his motorcycle, in front of Bharath Petrol Bunk located in Erode to Nasiyanur road, the 2nd respondent drove the auto

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Page 2/8

¶29

C.M.A.No.1613 of 2022

¶30

bearing registration No.TN 33 AM 5703 in a rash and negligent manner and while entering into the petrol bunk, hit against the claimant/1^st respondent and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, the 1^st respondent sustained bone fracture in head and admitted in Erode K.M.C.H Hospital, where he took treatment as inpatient for nearly 40 days. The injured/claimant claimed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after examining evidence adduced on both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.32,54,000/-. This appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company assailing the quantum of compensation.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel the appellant Insurance Company, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent-claimant and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

6 . The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal erred in holding 40% as loss of earning power and applying multiplier method is contrary to the facts of the case particularly when the Medical Board has fixed disability as 30% . Further, the 1^st respondent has also not filed acceptable proof towards medical expenses to award a sum of Rs.6,97,000/-.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Page 3/8

¶35

C.M.A.No.1613 of 2022

¶36

¶37

The learned counsel for 1 st respondent submitted that the Tribunal has given clear reasons for granting the compensation, hence, the award passed by the Tribunal does not require interference of this Court.

¶38

In the instant case, the disability certificate that has been issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1 assessing 30% disability. Whereas PW2 Doctor who has treated the 1^st respondent has given Disability Certificate, assessing 50% disability. The tribunal taken the disability as 40% and adopted multiplier method by taking 14 as multiplier and determined Rs.23,52,000/- as compensation for Permanent disability. However, Ex.P.11 shows that petitioner sustained 11 fractures, 4 injuries are grievous in nature and skull of the petitioner was opened and surgery done, due to which, the petitioner's working power much reduced and he is affected by functional disability. Relying on the judgment reported in 2017 ACJ 284 [The Branch Manager, M/s.TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Prabhu and others] , wherein, it is held that if certificates of permanent disability are issued by Medical Board, they are based on Central Government Circular dated 13/6/2001 and it adds credibility and authenticity, we are of the view that 30% disability assessed by the Medical Board is to be taken for determining the compensation. Accordingly, taking

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Page 4/8

¶41

C.M.A.No.1613 of 2022

¶42

30% functional disability and adopting multiplier 14, we determine the compensation for Permanent disability as under:-

¶43

Rs.35,000/- x 12 x 14 x 30% = Rs.17,64,000/-.

¶44

The claimant was a driver and sustained multiple fracture and injuries in the head and underwent surgery. Therefore, he would not have been able to get back to his normal work for some period after the accident. Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the compensation under the head “Loss of earning during the period of treatment” as Rs.40,000/-.

¶45

The 1^st respondent had undergone surgery in head and was treated as an inpatient for nearly 40 days. However, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of “Attender charges”. Hence, considering his long period of admission in the hospital, we deem it proper to grant compensation of Rs.25,000/-. under the head “Attender charges”.

¶46

That apart, the Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- for Extra Nourishment and Rs.40,000/- towards transport charges. This Court is of the view that the compensation under the said two heads (i.e,) Extra Nourishment

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Page 5/8

¶49

C.M.A.No.1613 of 2022

¶50

and Transport charges, is of higher side and therefore, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the heads Extra nourishment, is deleted and towards the Head of transport expenses, the amount is reduced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.

¶51

The compensation fixed under the other heads are reasonable and it

¶52

does not require interference of this Court. The modified compensation is as

¶53

under:-

¶54

S. No	Description	Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)	Amount awarded by this Court (Rs)	Award confirmed or enhanced orgranted
1.	Loss of Earnings during theperiod of treatment	Nil	40,000	Added
2.	Transport to Hospital	40,000	10,000	Reduced
3.	Extra nourishment	10,000	nil	Deleted
4.	Attender charges	nil	25,000	Added
5.	Damages for clothes and articles	5,000	5,000	Confirmed
6.	Medical expenses	6,97,000	6,97,000	Confirmed
7.	Pain and sufferings	1,50,000	1,50,000	Confirmed
8.	Permanent disability & loss of earning power	23,52,000	17,64,000	Reduced
	Total	32,54,000	26,91,000	Reduced

¶55

In the result, C.M.A. is partly allowed and the award is modified.

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

Page 6/8

¶58

C.M.A.No.1613 of 2022

¶59

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.32,54,000/- is hereby reduced to Rs.26,91,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Ninety One Thousand only) ) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.362 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge Court), Erode, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the 1^st respondent is entitled to withdraw the same by filing proper application. Further, the 1^st respondent/claimant is entitled proportionate costs and Advocate fees as per Rules.

¶60

(J.N.B,J.) (R.S.V., J.) Index : Yes / No 18.11.2024 Internet : Yes sk/nvsri To

¶61

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Erode.

¶62

J. NISHA BANU, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL,J.

¶63

sk/nvsri

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

Page 7/8

¶66

C.M.A.No.1613 of 2022

¶67

C.M.A.No.1613 of 2022

¶68

18.11.2024

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

Page 8/8

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. G.Baskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. G.Baskar

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

K. Nagapoosanam(Since Deceased), 1.Nanthini Vs S.Rajagopal

Mrs. Dhanam Ravi Vs Shri Sunil Paliwal, I.A.S. and another

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sridhar

The Managing Director Vs Sandhiya

P.Raja Vs Jija @ Jijabai

The Managing Director Vs Manikandan