Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
C.Mani - Respondent
CMA No.1814 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.9778 of 2021
Decided on : 03-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For the Respondent: Mr.P.Chinnaraj
Compensation for personal injury must be supported by evidence of impairment affecting avocation; lack of such evidence justifies modification of awarded amounts.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation for personal injury - The appeal concerns the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a road accident. The claimant suffered a head injury, but evidence did not support claims of significant impairment affecting his work. The Tribunal's application of the multiplier method was deemed unjustified due to lack of evidence of avocation interference. (Paras 3, 8, 10)
(B) Assessment of damages - The court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, reducing amounts for pain and suffering, extra nourishment, and loss of amenities, while granting compensation for loss of income during treatment. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was involved in a road accident on 07.06.2016, resulting in a head injury. He underwent treatment for several months, but evidence indicated he had recovered without significant impairment. (Paras 2, 4, 8)
Findings of Court:
The total compensation was modified from Rs.6,95,301/- to Rs.4,90,701/-, with specific reductions in various heads of damages. (Paras 11)
Issues: The main issues included the appropriateness of the multiplier method for calculating compensation and the justification for the amounts awarded under various heads. (Paras 3, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence showing the injury affected the claimant's ability to work justified the reduction of compensation and the rejection of the multiplier method. (Paras 8, 10)
Result: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, and the compensation is reduced to Rs.4,90,701/-.
JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellant/Insurance company has come before this Court by way of this appeal.
2. It is not in dispute that 1st respondent/claimant met with an accident involving the Maruti Omni van belonged to the 2nd respondent insured with the appellant on 07.06.2016. Both the learned counsel for the appellant as well as 1st respondent/claimant have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence and liability. Hence, the facts necessary to decide those questions are not discussed in this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that absolutely there is no evidence available on record to show that the injury suffered by the claimant interfered with his avocation and hence, the Tribunal committed a serious error in applying multiplier method in calculating compensation. The learned counsel also submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads like pain and suffering, Extra nourishment and Transportation, loss of amenities are on the higher side.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant submitted that as a result of the road accident, the claimant suffered head injury and he had been in treatment for more than six months. He further submitted that the head injury suffered by him made him unsuitable for doing any manual work and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in applying multiplier method. He also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head loss of earning during treatment period.
5. The Ex.P3 is the discharge summary issued by the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai. A perusal of the same would suggest that as a result of the accident, the claimant suffered head injury and he underwent CT scan for chest and abdomen and he was discharged on the date of admission itself. The Ex.P4 is the discharge summary issued by the Ramachandra Medical College and Hospital. A perusal of the same would indicate that victim was admitted on 18.06.2016 and discharged on 22.06.2016. The final diagnosis noted in the discharge summary reads as follows:-
1) Post Traumatic Amnesia- Recovered
2) Old Tuberculosis Sequelae
6. It is also seen from the discharge summary that MRI-Brain was done and there was no significant adverse findings except old calcified granuloma with no surrounding edema. It was also noted at the time of discharge that memory of the patient had improved and he had been stable.
7.The Ex.P5 is an outpatient slip issued by the Ramachandra Hospital and the same would indicate that patient was treated for hiccup and related illness for some time. The Ex.P6 is the discharge summary issued by the Ramachandra Hospital. A perusal of the same would indicate that victim was admitted on 20.02.2017 and was discharged on 24.02.2017. In the discharge summary, it is also clearly noted that the patient was recovered from Post Traumatic Amnesia. He was admitted for vomiting. MRI Brain was performed and there was no significant finding in the MRI except earlier finding with regard to old calcified granuloma with no surrounding edema and diffuse age related cerebral atrophy. Therefore, a perusal of the three discharge summaries marked before the Tribunal would indicate that the normal activities of the claimant has not been affected due to the head injury.
8. The Ex.C1 is the disability certificate issued by the medical board. A reading of the same would indicate that the disability suffered by the claimant was assessed at 50%. However, there is no indication in the disability certificate that the claimant is suffering from any kind of difficulty in performing manual work. The claimant was examined as P.W.1 before the Tribunal. Even though he asserted in the proof affidavit that after accident he could not do any work on account of injury, in the cross-examination he clearly admitted that the injury suffered by him due to the accident got cured completely. The cl
