Insurance company appealed the motor accident award on quantum; claimant sought enhancement via cross objection. Court confirmed functional disability at 60%, upheld notional income of Rs.11,000 with 40% future prospects, rejected xerox medical bills, reassessed heads and partly enhanced compensation to Rs.21,14,783.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: Pronounced on: 26.03.2024 08.04.2024
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2266 of 2021 and Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021
The General Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.Ltd., II Floor, “Dare House” No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. ...Appellant
vs
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2020 made in MCOP.No.390 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Tirupattur.
1/9
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024
Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024 Amjath ... Cross Appellant Vs.
Cross Objection filed under Order 11 Rule 22 of C.P.C., to enhance the judgment and decree of the claims Tribunal in its award dated 24.07.2020 made in MCOP.No.390 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Tirupattur.
For Appellant in CMA.No.334 : Mrs.R.Sree Vidhya of 2021 and first respondent in Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024 For First Respondent in : Mrs.A.Subadra C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and appellant in Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024 For Second Respondent : R2- Deceased [in both CMA as well as Cross.Objection]
JUDGMENT
2/9
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024
The Insurance company is the appellant challenging the award passed in MCOP.No.390 of 2016 on the point of quantum. Pending Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the claim petitioner has filed Cross Objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
3/9
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024
Ex.R1 and R2.
the disability is fixed at 60% as the disability is permanent in nature.
4/9
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024
professional employment, the claim petitioner could not do the same work that he had been before injury. The injuries sustained by the claim petitioner leads to functional disability. Hence, I find that the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner is functional disability as the evidence on record adduced by the claim petitioner satisfies the ratio laid down in the Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2010(2) TNMAC 581 and accordingly, the said finding of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed and the functional disability is fixed at 60%.
5/9
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024
Saudi Arabia till the date of accident. The claim petitioner was not employed till the date of accident stands established. Accordingly, the notional income of Rs.11,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is found to be just and fair. For the purpose of fixing the future prospects by applying the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & others (2017 (16) SCC 680) , the Trial Court fixed the future prospects at 40% and accordingly monthly income with future prospects is fixed at Rs.15,400/-. The loss of functional disability is fixed at Rs.17,74,080/- [15,4001216*60/100 = 17,74,080].
9. On perusal of Ex.P14, it is found that the bills are not in original and only xerox copes. The same was objected on behalf of the 2 nd respondent during cross examination stating that the original bills were already used for getting insurance benefit. Whatever may be the contentions, the claim petitioner is expected to produce the original bills. Since the original is not produced, the amount covered under Ex.P14 could not be accepted. Barring Ex.P14, the medical bills comes to Rs.1,95,703.25/- rounded off to Rs.1,95,703/-. The entire sum of Rs.1,95,703/- is awarded towards medical
6/9
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024
expenses and hence, the compensation awarded by the Trial Court is
reassessed as follows:
| S.No. | Particulars | A T |
ward of ribunal |
Enha | nced amount | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Permanent Disability | Rs. | 17,74,080/- | Rs. | 17,74,080/- | Confirmed |
| 2. | Pain and Suffering | Rs. | 75,000/- | Rs. | 50,000/- | Reduced |
| 3. | Extra Nourishment | Rs. | 5,000/- | Rs. | 25,000/- | Enhanced |
| 4. | Transportation Charges | Rs. | 8,000/- | Rs. | 25,000/- | Enhanced |
| 5. | Attender Charges | Rs. | 10,000/- | Rs. | 25,000/- | Enhanced |
| 6. | Loss of Amenities | Rs. | 10,000/- | Rs. | 20,000/- | Enhanced |
| 7. | Medical Expenses | Rs. | 1,95,703/- | Rs. | 1,95,703/- | Confirmed |
| Total | Rs. | 20,77,783/- | Rs. | 21,14,783/- |
1 0. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the claim petitioner is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The enhanced compensation amount be deposited by the Insurance Company together with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount now determined by this Court along with interest, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.390
7/9
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024
08.04.2024
Index:yes/no Speaking Judgment/Non-Speaking Judgment Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
To
8/9
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and Cross.Obj.No.15 of 2024
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
mp
C.M.A.No.334 of 2021 and CROSS.OBJ.No.15 of 2024
08.04.2024
9/9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's quantum of compensation for a claimant with 60% permanent functional disability was correct and whether enhancement was warranted?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay KumarApplied¶6
2010(2) TNMAC 581
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & othersApplied¶8
2017 (16) SCC 680 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The General Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
K.Amjath
Anwar Basha
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
