Partly allowed

The Branch Manager, v. Mejo

Madras HC14 Aug 2024CMA(MD)/377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer's appeal against MACT award of Rs.8,42,964 to a pillion rider injured in a bus collision. The High Court found Rs.4 lakhs under 'injuries' unsupported since disability was 15% with no functional disability; reduced it to Rs.75,000 at Rs.5,000 per percentage point, but enhanced future medical expenses to Rs.2 lakhs. Total compensation fixed at Rs.6,57,964.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Branch Manager, Vs Mejo — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD)No.377 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 14.08.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No. 377 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.5069 of 2024

¶7

The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Thazha Plaza, Bye Pass Road, Tirunelveli - 2

¶8

Tirunelveli - 2 ... Appellant/Respondent No.3 Vs. 1.Mejo ..1^st Respondent/Petitioner 2.Cleetus 3.The Chairman, Udaya College,Udaya Nagar, Vellamodi,Ammandivilai Post, Kanaykumari District.

¶9

4.Pandian @ Veera Soora Perumal 5.P.Jayasuthan 6.Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, 82, Chandragandhi Nagar, Bypass Road, Madurai ...Respondents 2 to 5/Respondents1, 2 , 3 to 5 (The appellant has given up the appal as against the respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6 above named)

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 6^th December 2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.67 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge (Subordinate Judge) of Kuzhithurai.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel For R1 : Mr.A.Balakrishnan R3 : No appearance For R2,R4 to R6 : Given up

¶12

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

¶13

Page No.1 of 8

¶14

C.M.A.(MD)No.377 of 2024

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 67 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge (Subordinate Judge) of Kuzhithurai.

¶17

2. The 1^st respondent herein filed a claim petition stating that on 13.10.2015, while he was travelling in a bike as a pillion rider, a bus insured with the appellant came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which, the 1^st respondent suffered severe injuries. The 1^st respondent has filed the claim petition against the driver, owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant, besides the rider of the two wheeler and the Insurance Company of the two wheeler.

¶18

3. The appellant Insurance Company filed a counter stating that the

¶19

accident took place only due to the negligent riding of the two wheeler rider and that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation and in any case, the compensation claimed was excessive.

¶20

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

¶21

Page No.2 of 8

¶22

C.M.A.(MD)No.377 of 2024

¶23

4. The other respondents filed a counter denying the averments in

¶24

the claim petition.

¶25

5. The 1^st respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor as P.W.2 besides marking Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. The appellant neither examined any witness nor marked any document.

¶26

6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,42,964/-.

¶27

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they had challenged the award only aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently oppose the grant of compensation under the head 'compensation for the injuries'. According to him, the Tribunal, without any basis, had awarded Rs.4 lakhs under the heading 'compensation for the injuries', which is contrary to the settled position of law and that the compensation awarded under other heads is also excessive and prayed for reduction of compensation.

¶28

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

¶29

Page No.3 of 8

¶30

C.M.A.(MD)No.377 of 2024

¶31

8. The 1^st respondent/claimant per contra submitted that the award

¶32

of compensation is just and reasonable, as the claimant, who was 13 years old at the time of accident, a bright student, whose ambition has been thwarted by the accident, is entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶33

9. Notice to other respondents is dispensed with in the light of the issue involved in the instant appeal.

¶34

10. The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶35

11. Concededly, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant had not let-in any evidence to disprove the evidence let-in on the side of

¶36

the 1^st respondent on this aspect. In any case, there is no challenge to the finding of negligence.

¶37

12. As regards quantum, it is seen that the Tribunal was swayed by

¶38

the fact that the 1^st respondent had an ambition to become a police officer

¶39

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

¶40

Page No.4 of 8

¶41

C.M.A.(MD)No.377 of 2024

¶42

or an army officer and his ambition could not be accomplished because of the accident and therefore, had awarded Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. This Court finds that the manner in which the compensation was awarded is not in accordance with the settled position of law. Ex.P.9 is the disability certificate issued by the Doctor, which indicates that the 1^st respondent suffered disability at 15%. No evidence has been let-in to

¶43

show that the 1^st respondent had suffered any functional disability. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the compensation for the injury suffered can be awarded on a percentage basis at the rate of Rs.5000/- for a percentage. Thus, the award of compensation under the head of injuries is reduced to Rs.75,000/-.

¶44

13. The award of compensation under the head of pain and suffering is reasonable and hence, confirmed. The award under the head medical expenses is granted on the basis of the medical bills and hence, confirmed. The award under the heads nourishment expenses, attendant charges and transport charges is also confirmed.

¶45

14. The medical records namely, Ex.P.7, wound certificate, Ex.P.8, the treatment and discharge summary and other documents show that the

¶46

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

¶47

Page No.5 of 8

¶48

C.M.A.(MD)No.377 of 2024

¶49

1^st respondent underwent surgery on 13.10.2015 for the fracture in the right tibia which involved fixation of a plate with screws. There was a need for surgery for removal of the plate and also for continuous treatment besides physiotherapy. Though the 1^st respondent had produced Ex.P.11, an Estimate for implant removal, for Rs.60,000/-, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have considered the other incidental expenses, which would be involved for future medical expenses such as, physiotherapy, attendant charges etc. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it would be just and reasonable to fix Rs.2 lakhs towards future medical expenses, physiotherapy charges and other incidental expenses for complete recovery. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:

¶50

*Sl.* *No.*	*Heads of Compensation*	*Amount* *awarded by* *the Tribunal* *(Rs.)*	*Amount* *awarded by* *this Court* *(Rs.)*
1.	Compensation for injuries	4,00,000.00	75,000.00
2.	Pain and suffering	2,00,000.00	2,00,000.00
3.	Medical expenses	1,42,964.00	1,42,964.00
4.	Future medical expenses	60,000.00	2,00,000.00
5.	Nutrition expenses	10,000.00	10,000.00
6.	Attendant Expenses	20,000.00	20,000.00
7.	Transport Charges	10,000.00	10,000.00
	Total :	8,42,964.00	6,57,964.00

¶51

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

¶52

Page No.6 of 8

¶53

C.M.A.(MD)No.377 of 2024

¶54

15. The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit the award

¶55

amount after deducting the amount already deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1^st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on filing a suitable application before the Tribunal.

¶56

16. In fine, this appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶57

14.08.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No CM

¶58

¶59

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, (Subordinate Judge) of Kuzhithurai.

¶60

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶61

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

¶62

Page No.7 of 8

¶63

C.M.A.(MD)No.377 of 2024

¶64

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶65

¶66

Judgment made in C.M.A(MD)No. 377 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.5069 of 2024

¶67

14.08.2024

¶68

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

¶69

Page No.8 of 8

The Branch Manager, v. Mejo

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Branch Manager, v. Mejo

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Vs Selvaraj

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs P.Thiyagarajan (Decd)

Employees State Insurance Vs Raja Textile

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Murugavalli @ Murugeswari

M/s.National Insurance Company Limited, Vs S.Vellathai (Died) 1. S.Sudalaimuthu

The Divisional Manager Vs P.Senthilkumar