Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5380
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S. KARNAN
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.
Versus
P.Umaiyal & Another
C.M.A.No.279 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.1459 of 2005
Decided on : 08-12-2009
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar.
For respondents: Mr.R.Neelakandan, for R1, No appearance – for R2.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the re-evaluation of the claimant's disability and loss of earning capacity, leading to a modification of the compensation awarded.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Workmen Compensation Rules, Schedule 1, Item 4 - Assessment of Disability - Loss of Earning Power - Permanent Disability - [COMPENSATION] - [MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS] - [Workmen Compensation Rules, Schedule 1, Item 4] - The court discussed the assessment of disability and loss of earning power in the context of the claimant's permanent disability due to a motor accident. It highlighted the interpretation of Workmen Compensation Rules, Schedule 1, Item 4 in determining the percentage of disability and the calculation of compensation for loss of earning capacity. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the claimant's disability and its impact on her earning capacity, leading to a modification of the compensation awarded.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident, resulting in permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The appellant challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant's disability and loss of earning power, leading to an excessive award. It concluded that the claimant was entitled to a lower lumpsum compensation for her permanent disability and loss of amenities in life.
Issues: Assessment of disability, quantum of compensation, and interpretation of Workmen Compensation Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court modified the compensation by re-evaluating the claimant's disability percentage and the calculation of loss of earning capacity, considering the impact of the accident on the claimant's life and amenities.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, and the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was modified, resulting in a reduced compensation amount.
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 312. 2002, made in O.P.No.409 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs.7,48,443/-with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the petition to till the date of payment of compensation.
2.Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/United India Insurance Co., Ltd., has filed the above appeal praying for setting aside the order. It has been contended by the appellant that even according to PW2, OCU list, the first respondent has problem only in the right eye and has not lost the eye completely and as such the Tribunal has erred in relying on the assessment of PW2 to hold 100% disability, in spite of the fact that as per W.C. Schedule, the disability to be fixed for loss of vision in one eye is only 30%. It has also been contended that the Tribunal has erred in granting a huge sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards loss of earning power in spite of the fact that the first respondent received a salary of Rs.10,50,000/-per annum for the year ending 31.03.2002 as per Ex.P15. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in granting Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability relying on the incorrect assessment of 100% and as such the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has sought reconsideration of the excessive award granted to the claimant.
3.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 25.03.1997, at about 8.30 a.m., the petitioner was travelling in a Contessa Classic Car, bearing registration No.TN27 4456, belonging to the first respondent and that when the car was nearing Manoj Kumar Spinning Mills in Salem to Namakkal main road, the driver of the Car drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Parapet Wall. Due to this, the petitioner sustained grievous multiple injuries and was admitted in Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem-4. Her vision in the right eye is completely damaged. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 47 years. She was hale and healthy and was the Director in many spinning mills and was in charge in selecting cotton to these mills. Now, after the accident she is not able to work as earlier. The first respondent, the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent, the insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The injured claimant has claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents.
4.The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the consequential liability fixed on the appellant-Insurance Company to compensate the claimant is not in dispute and the same is confirmed.
5.The contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is regarding disability assessed by doctor and on quantum of compensation.
6.Before the Tribunal, the injured claimant was examined as PW1. One Doctor, M.Elangovan, who assessed the disability of injured at 100% was examined as PW2; her husband, who was the co-passenger in the car was examined as PW3; the Secretary of the Nachammai Cotton Mills was examined as PW5. In support of this claim petition, Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. Ex.P5 is the Disability Certificate issued by the Doctor and the Ex.P14 and P15 are the Salary Certificate of the petitioner. Ex.P2 is the copy of Accident Register; Ex.P3 is the Discharge Summary of Gokulam Hospital; Ex.P5 is the Discharge Summary of Kovai Medical Centre and Ex.P6 is the Medical Bills; and Ex.P8 is the Discharge Summary of United Apollo Hospital.
7.The injured claimant in this case was aged about 47 years. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased claimant of Rs.3,60,000/-per anum. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier method and fixed the compensation for the disability at Rs.6,00,000/-. In addition to the same, the Tribun
