IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.S. KARNAN, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Vs.
P. Yuvaraj & Ors. – Respondents
C.M.A.No.2018 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
Decided On : 07.10.2015
Insurance - Motor Accident - Compensation for injuries sustained in a car accident
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was driving his car when it was hit by another vehicle, resulting in injuries to the claimant and his wife. The Insurance Company resisted the claim, alleging negligence on the part of the claimant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the accident was caused by the driver of the other vehicle, and awarded compensation to the claimant for medical expenses, disability, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities.
Issues: The issues included the negligence of the parties involved, the quantum of compensation, and the liability of the Insurance Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the F.I.R and medical evidence to determine the cause of the accident and the extent of the claimant's injuries, and restructured the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal by the Insurance Company and directed them to pay the compensation amount to the claimant.
On 06.09.2008, at about 12.00 noon, when the claimant was driving the car bearing registration No.TN-56Y-1618, on the Gobi Main Road, the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-5228, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car. As a result, the claimant and his wife sustained injuries. Hence, the claimant has filed a separate claim petition against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent also denied the averments regarding nature of injuries, mode of treatment and disability. The respondent further submits that the claimant had committed the said accident without following traffic rules and dashed his car against the lorry. As such, the entire negligence rests on the side of the claimant. The owner and insurer of the car are necessary parties in the instant case but they have not been impleaded.
3. After recording the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, no evidence, no documents. After recording the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the exhibits marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,82,922/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.
4. The highly competent counsel, Mr. S. Arunkumar, appearing for the Insurance Company submits that in the said accident, two vehicles have been involved i.e., including the claimant's car. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the car are necessary parties in the proceedings but they have not been impleaded as necessary parties. As such the claim is not maintainable due to non-joinder of parties. The Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation under the head of disability which is not pertinent in the instant case. The Doctor had assessed the disability as 45% which is also on the higher side. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
5. The very competent counsel Mr. Ma. Pa. Thangavel appearing for the claimant submits that the F.I.R has been levelled against the driver of the lorry since he had committed the accident in a rash and negligent manner. In the said accident, the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and he had undergone medical treatment at a private hospital, wherein he was treated as inpatient for about one month. During medical treatment period, a surgical operation was conducted and a steel plate was fixed in the operated area. The claimant's right leg had been shortened by 1 ½”. The medical expenditure amounts to a sum of Rs.1,59,122/- was incurred. Besides, future medical treatment is required to remove the steel plate from the operated area by way of re-operation. This was not considered by the trial Court. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above appeal.
6. On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of the view that as per F.I.R, it is seen that the accident had been committed by the driver of lorry. The same has been insured with the appellant herein. As per Doctor's evidence, the claimant had undergone a surgical operation and his right leg had been shortened by 1 ½”. The Doctor had assessed the disability 45% and the fractured bone had been malunited. Further, the claimant had spent a sum of Rs.1,59,122/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded is reasonable. However, the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is not appropriate. Hence, this Court restructure the compensation as follows:
Rs.90,000/- towards disability;
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering;
Rs.15,000/- towards attender charges;
Rs.15,000/- towards nutrition;
Rs.15,0
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.