IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - Appellant
Versus
P.Muniysamy – Respondent
C.M.A.No.831 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.4790 of 2021
Decided on : 02-01-2025
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Appeal against compensation awarded by Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,19,200/- for injuries sustained in an accident, which was challenged by the Insurance Company on grounds of excessive compensation for disability. (Paras 4, 10, 11)
(B) Compensation - The court found the compensation for loss of partial income, transport expenses, extra nourishment, damages for clothes, medical expenses, and pain & suffering to be just and reasonable, but reduced the amount for disability and loss of earning power from Rs.3,35,200/- to Rs.2,80,000/- due to lack of functional disability evidence. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in a motorcycle accident caused by the first respondent's negligent driving, leading to a claim for compensation. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The total compensation was reassessed to Rs.5,64,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. (Paras 13)
Issues: The main issue was whether the compensation awarded for disability was excessive and contrary to established legal principles. (Paras 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in the absence of functional disability, the multiplier method for calculating compensation for disability is not sustainable. (Paras 11)
Result: The appeal is partly allowed, modifying the compensation awarded.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Erode in M.C.O.P.No.634 of 2017 dated 08.03.2019.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3.The petitioner is the claimant, the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the Insurance Company before the Tribunal.
4.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
According to the petitioner, on 18.06.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 63 AF 8212 on Pollachi to Kovai Road, from South to North direction, while the petitioner was proceeding near Malumichampatti, the first respondent drove the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN.57 AT 2535 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained bone fracture and grievous injuries. Soon after the accident, the petitioner was taken to Dr.Muthu's Hospital, Coimbatore and underwent treatment as an inpatient from 18.06.2017 to 25.06.2017. A case was registered in FIR No.169/2017 under Sections 279 & 337 IPC. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.634 of 2017, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,19,200/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the Medical Board assessed the disability and opined that the first respondent sustained 40% temporary disability, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of disability and loss of earning power is very excessive. Hence, he prayed for appropriate orders.
6.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
7.Though the notice has been served and the name of the respondents having been printed in the cause list, there is no representation on the side of the respondents either in person or through counsel. Considering the pendency of the appeal, this Court is inclined to dispose of the appeal based on the materials available on record.
8.The accident and the manner in which the accident happened are not disputed. This appeal has been filed questioning the quantum of compensation. Hence, there is no need for any discussion with regard to negligence.
9.Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and on the side of the petitioner, 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The certificate received from the District Medical Board was marked as Court document in Ex.C1.
10.The Tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs.26,600/- for loss of partial income, Rs.3,000/- for transport expenses, Rs.6,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.500/- for damages for clothes and articles, Rs.1,47,900/- for medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- for pain & suffering and others, Rs.3,35,200/- for disability and loss of earning power and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.6,19,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
11.The amount awarded under the heads loss of partial income, transport expenses, extra nourishment, damages for clothes & articles, medical expenses, pain & suffering in the opinion of this Court are just and reasonable. The amount awarded under the head disability and loss of earning is contrary to law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 1 SCC 343, in the absence of any functional disability awarding compensation adopting the multiplier method is not sustainable, in the opinion of this Court is excessive and this Court is inclined to reduce the amount awarded under the said head. Accordingly, the amount awarded
Compensation for disability must be based on functional disability; the multiplier method is not applicable without it.
Compensation adjustments must comply with judicial standards, specifically addressing the need for functional disability evidence rather than merely applying multiplier methods.
Compensation for injuries must be based on actual loss of income and the impact of disability on earning capacity, not on arbitrary assessments.
Court confirmed that fair compensation for grievous injuries includes assessment of permanent disability and future prospects, following established legal principles.
The assessment of disability, nature of injuries, and calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act were central to the court's decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation based on the nature of injuries, loss of earning power, and relevant legal provisions.
The court enhanced the awarded compensation for injuries based on insufficient initial valuations for disability, pain, suffering, and related expenses, emphasizing the need for fair compensation.
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.