SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 184

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. KALAIMATHI, J.
The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Vellore & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Durai Murugan & Anr. - Respondents
C.M.A. No. 1784 of 2018 & C.M.P. No. 13754 of 2018 & Cros Objection No. 48 of 2022
Decided On : 24-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:J. Michael Visuvasam, R. Nalliyappan, Advocates.

The judgment established the application of the multiplier method for computing loss of earning power in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the claimant's age, future prospects, and relevant legal principles.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 166 - Judgment discussed the application of multiplier method for computing loss of earning power and the assessment of disability, referencing relevant legal provisions and principles such as Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, and Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another.

Fact of the Case:

The claimant filed a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained in a road accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,78,000 to the claimant, which was challenged by the Insurance Company.

Finding of the Court:

The Court analyzed the evidence, including medical assessments, and discussed the application of the multiplier method for computing loss of earning power. It found that the Tribunal's adoption of the multiplier method and assessment of disability were justified, but adjusted the monthly income and other components of the compensation.

Issues: Evaluation of evidence, application of multiplier method, assessment of disability, and computation of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the use of the multiplier method for computing loss of earning power and considered the claimant's age, future prospects, and relevant legal principles in determining the compensation.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, the Cross Objection was allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced from Rs.5,78,000 to Rs.9,47,000.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.04.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.327 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.

This Cross Objection is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.04.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.327 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Vellore in M.C.O.P.No.327 of 2011.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident that occurred on 16.02.2011.

3. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence has passed an award for an amount of Rs.5,78,000/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam would strenuously contend that the Tribunal by adopting multiplier method has granted loss of income is totally unwarranted. The injured suffered fracture of ribs, dislocation of calvicular joint, fracture of right pelvic bone. He was treated conservatively for eight days. Dr.Shanmugasundaram/PW2 after four years of accident has assessed the disability at 50% is on the higher side. The Tribunal has not discussed as to how the impairment has resulted in loss of earning capacity and sought for a change.

5. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant Mr.R.Nalliyappan, would vehemently argue that because of the above said injuries sustained by the claimant, his right side movement was considerably restricted. The claimant was a Manager. Due to the said injuries and fractures, the injured is not in a position to lift his right hand. The Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier method for computing loss of earning power. The Tribunal reduced the disability to 40% is not correct. The income of the claimant was fixed at Rs.6,000/- is less. The amount awarded for pain and sufferings is also not sufficient and for attender charges no amount was awarded.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

7. At trial, on the side of the petitioner, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On the side of the respondents two witnesses were examined. Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.

8. It is the evidence of PW1 that on 16.02.2011, at 11.30 a.m., due to the mechanical failure, the petitioner had parked his lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-21-M-4999 near Manthangal near Pachiappan Naicker Land on the left side of the road, a truck bearing Reg.No.TN-36-X-8524 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the lorry from behind, the petitioner sustained fracture of his right pelvic bone, dislocation of right clavicle joint fracture of right ribs 2 to 9. As per Ex.P7 discharge summary issued by Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, he was treated as inpatient from 17.02.2011 to 24.02.2011. Initially treatment was taken at Government Hospital, Wallajah and thereafter, he took treatment at CMC, Vellore. For the fracture of pelvic bone, he had undergone surgery.

9. PW2-Dr.Shanmugasundaram, an Orthopaedic Surgeon would state that the claimant suffered from malunion as regards pelvic bone fracture. He has assessed the disability at 50%. He has opined that due to the above said fractures and injuries the injured would find it difficulty in lifting the objects while doing his work, he cannot stand or walk continuously for half an hour.

10. The Tribunal has fix





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top