Partly allowed

The Manager v. S.Marimuthu

Madras HC2 Dec 2024CMA/2390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court, in a Motor Accident Claim Petition, modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court corrected the notional monthly income and recalculated the disability and loss of earning components, enhancing the total award from Rs.19.7 lakh to Rs.26.54 lakh. The Cross Objection by the claimant seeking enhancement was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.19,70,000 to Rs.26,54,000 including revised disability and loss of earning calculations. Tank amount deposited by insurance company with 7.5% interest.

The Manager Vs S.Marimuthu — Medical Negligence | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶8

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024 and CMP.No.18967 of 2024 and Cross Objection No.83 of 2024

¶9

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶10

The Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Legal Department, Reliance House, 4^th Floor, No.6, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.

... Appellant

Vs.

1.Mr.S.Marimuthu

S/o.Seenan

2.J.Venkatesh S/o.Jaishankar

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 26.06.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3870 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1/11

¶19

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.G.Vasudevan

¶21

For Respondents : Ms.M.Malar

¶22

Cross Objection No.83 of 2024

S.Marimuthu,

S/o Seenan

..Appellant

-vs-

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Legal Department, Reliance House, 4th Floor, No.6, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

¶28

J.Venkatesh, S/o Jaishankar

¶29

..Respondents.

¶30

Prayer: This Cross Objection is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. against the order dated 26.06.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3870 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

¶31

For Appellant : Ms.M.Malar

¶32

For Respondents : Mr.G.Vasudevan for R1

¶33

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶34

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J. Nisha Banu, J)

¶35

The Insurance Company has filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

¶36

aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2/11

¶38

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶39

(II Court of Small Causes), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.3870 of 2019 dated 26.06.2023. The Cross Objection has been filed by the injured claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶40

The injured claimant has filed the claim petition stating that on 29.04.2019 at about 16.00 hours, he was riding the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-25-AR-6534 and proceeding towards Thirumukkoodal-Nelvoy Koot Road, near Aravind Ceramics Company, Kanchipuram District. At that time, a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN22-DE-8533 driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, hit his motor cycle. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The accident had happened only due to rash and negligent manner of the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.TN-22-DE-8533. FIR came to be registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No.85 of 2019. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-.

¶41

3.The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶42

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

¶43

Page 3/11

¶44

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶45

case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

¶46

The Tribunal thereafter, proceeded to determine the total compensation at Rs.19,70,000/- under various heads in the following

¶47

manner:-

¶48

Sl. No.	Compensation awarded under the head	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Towards Disability	Rs.16,80,000/-
2.	Towards Pain and Sufferings	Rs. 1,00,000/-
3.	Towards Loss of earning during Treatment	Rs.30,000/-
4.	Towards medical expenses	-Nil-
5.	Towards of Loss of Amenities	Rs.1,00,000/-
6.	Towards Attender Charges	Rs.20,000/-
7.	Towards Transportation Charges	Rs.20,000/-
8.	Towards extra Nourishment	Rs.20,000/-
	Total	Rs.19,70,000/-

¶49

The Tribunal directed the above compensation to be paid

¶50

with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.

¶51

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

¶52

Page 4/11

¶53

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶54

The insurance company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed the appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would state that the injured suddenly turned his two wheeler without minding the flow of traffic and hence, the accident had occurred. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the part of the injured claimant. He would further state that the award of Rs.16,80,000/towards disability is on the higher side. He would also state that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, awarded towards loss of amenities and pain and suffering, are excessive. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶55

Learned counsel for the claimant would state that the claimant was working as a labour in M/s. J.K.Crusher, Kancheepuram and was earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. He sustained grievous injuries and his right leg was amputated till above the knee and the medical board had assessed 80% disability and thus, he lost his earning capacity. However, the Tribunal had fixed the notional income as

¶56

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

¶57

Page 5/11

¶58

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶59

Rs.10,000/- which is very low. Therefore, he would seek to enhance the compensation.

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company and learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

¶61

We have carefully considered the submissions made on

¶62

either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶63

On going through the award passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal had taken into consideration, the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1-FIR and fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry, which in our opinion, does not warrant any interference.

¶64

Further, it is a case of amputation. The Tribunal, considering Ex.P2-Discharge summary, Ex.P4-Disability Certificate and considering that the avocation of the injured and the disability caused to the injured on account of the accident and the impact on his career, assessed the disability of the injured as 80%, which is fair and proper and we do not

¶65

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

¶66

Page 6/11

¶67

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶68

find any error in the said findings.

¶69

Insofar as the fixation of monthly income of the injured is concerned, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the injured as Rs.10,000/-. According to the claimant, he worked as a Labour in M/s.J.K.Crusher, Kancheepuram and earned Rs.18,000/-per month. From the records, it is seen that he sustained gullotine amputation of right leg above knee and the medical board had assessed 80% disability and thus, he lost his earning capacity. Therefore, we are of the opinion that fixing the notional income of the injured as Rs.14,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/would be fair and proper. Accordingly, we fix the notional monthly income of the injured as Rs.14,000/- per month.

¶70

Further, insofar as the future prospects is concerned, the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased as 42 years at the time of accident, has rightly added 25% towards future prospects as per the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017(2) TANMAC 609 (SC ). Therefore, if Rs.14,000/is fixed as notional monthly income and adding 25% future prospects,

¶71

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

¶72

Page 7/11

¶73

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶74

the loss of monthly income comes to Rs.17,500/-. Therefore, the total loss of income towards disability is Rs.23,52,000/- (i.e., 17,500 x 12 x 14 x80/100). Further, after the accident, the claimant had taken continuous medical treatment. Thus, the Tribunal, considering that the injured would not have attended the regular avocation for three months, awarded Rs.30,000/- (Rs.10,000 x 3) towards loss of earning during the period of injury. Now, as the loss of notional monthly income is fixed at Rs.14,000/-, the loss of earning during the period of injury is fixed as 14,000 x 3 = Rs.42,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. That apart, we are of the considered opinion that the compensation fixed under the other heads are reasonable and it does not require interference of this Court.

¶75

In the light of the above, the compensation awarded under the various heads by the Tribunal is hereby modified as under:

¶76

S.	Heads	Amount	Amount	Award
No		awarded by	awarded by	confirmed or
		Tribunal	this Court	enhanced or
		(Rs)	(Rs)	granted
1.	Towards Disability	16,80,000	23,52,000	Enhanced

¶77

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

¶78

Page 8/11

¶79

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶80

¶81

2.	Towards Pain and Sufferings	1,00,000	1,00,000	Confirmed
3.	Towards Loss of earning during Treatment	30,000	42,000	Enhanced
4.	Towards medical expenses	-Nil-	Nil	Confirmed
5.	Towards of Loss of Amenities	1,00,000	1,00,000	Confirmed
6.	Towards Attender Charges	20,000	20,000	Confirmed
7.	Towards Transportation Charges	20,000	20,000	Confirmed
8.	Towards extra Nourishment	20,000	20,000	Confirmed
	Total	Rs.19,70,000/-	Rs.26,54,000/-	Enhanced by Rs.6,84,000/-

¶82

15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal at Rs.19,70,000 /- i s hereby enhanced to Rs.26,54,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, the Cross Objection is partly allowed. The appellantInsurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount

¶83

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9/11

¶84

C.M.A.No.2390 of 2024

¶85

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.3870 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai. The other directions issued by the Tribunal and

¶86

the mode of payment of compensation ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶87