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) 218

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai - Appellant
Versus
N. Vijayalakshmi & Anr. - Respondents
C.M.A. No.3089 of 2023 & C.M.P. No. 29302 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.3089 of 2023
Decided On : 04-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:P. Suresh Srinivasan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, P.C. Ramesh, Advocates, J. Jayapriya, Caveator.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 40% principle and the fixing of 90% as loss of earning capacity in the context of a road accident claim, as guided by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Appeal against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award - Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - [Section 173, The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988] - The court discussed the application of 40% principle in arriving at the quantum of the impugned award and the fixing of 90% as loss of earning capacity in the light of the claimant having become paraplegic. The court referred to the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and distinguished between percentage of disability and percentage of loss of earning capacity.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed by an insurance company against an award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in favor of a claimant who suffered serious injuries in a road accident. The insurance company contested the quantum of the award, specifically the application of the 40% principle and the fixing of 90% as loss of earning capacity.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application of the 40% principle and the fixing of 90% as loss of earning capacity were in line with the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The court dismissed the appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

Issues: The issues were whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was correct in applying the 40% principle and in fixing 90% as loss of earning capacity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and distinguished between percentage of disability and percentage of loss of earning capacity.

Final Decision: The appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Petition were dismissed, and there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023 passed in M.C.O.P. No.6384 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Special Sub Judge II, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. Captioned main 'Civil Miscellaneous Appeal' (hereinafter 'CMA' for the sake of brevity) has been filed in this Court on 12.12.2023.

2. Captioned CMA is a statutory appeal under Section 173 of 'The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' (hereinafter 'MV Act' for the sake of brevity) and it has been filed by an insurance company which had insured a car owned by one R.Kamal (second respondent before this Court) in which N.Vijayalakshmi was a passenger and she suffered serious injuries owing to a road accident on 03.07.2015. To be noted, N.Vijayalakshmi is claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

3. Aforementioned CMA has been filed by the insurance company assailing an award dated 27.07.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.6384 of 2015 on the file of 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal being Court of Special Sub Judge II, Court of Small Causes, Chennai' (hereinafter 'said MACT' for the sake of convenience and clarity). This 27.07.2023 award' shall be referred to as 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience.

4. Short facts are that owing to the aforementioned road accident on 03.07.2015, N.Vijayalakshmi (first respondent before us) suffered injuries and she made a claim of Rs.1 crore before said MACT vide aforementioned M.C.O.P.No.6384 of 2015 and said MACT after full contest/full trial awarded a little over Rs.83.57 lakhs i.e., Rs.83,57,520/- to be precise. Insurance company has filed the captioned CMA saying that this quantum is high. To be noted, captioned CMA by the insurance company is only on quantum and not liability.

5. Today, in the Admission Board, Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan, learned counsel for insurance company and Mr.P.C.Ramesh, who is on caveat on behalf of the claimant are before us.

6. Learned counsel for insurance company assailing the impugned award (notwithstanding very many grounds that have been articulated in the memorandum of grounds of appeal) predicated his campaign against the impugned award on two points and they are as follows:

    (i) 40% should not have been applied and that has increased the quantum of award vastly;

    (ii) Disability percentage has been erroneously fixed at 90%.

    7. On the aforesaid grounds canvassed, the points for determination that arise in the captioned CMA are:

      (i) Whether said MACT was correct in applying 40% principle in arriving at the quantum of impugned award?

      (ii) Whether said MACT was correct in fixing 90% as loss of earning capacity in the light of claimant having become paraplegic?

      8. We carefully considered the arguments. We perused the case file before us and we are of the considered view that captioned CMA deserves to be dismissed and the reasons will be set out infra. To be noted, while setting out the reasons, we shall be setting out the points urged, discussion on the same and the dispositive reasoning together. The points, discussion and dispositive reasoning are as follows:

        8.1 As regards the first point regarding 40% addition of established income, the dispositive reasoning is fairly simple owing to authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and more particularly paragraph

        59.4 thereat which reads as follows: 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The estab

        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 telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top