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) 2719

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.Swaminathan, R.Poornima, JJ.
The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sankarapandian and ors. - Respondents
C.M.A.(MD)No.1459 of 2024 & C.M.P(MD)No.15644 of 2024
Decided On : 25-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.I.Robert Chandra Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr.V.Gubanthiran

Compensation for injuries must be just, reflecting the actual impact on earning capacity post-disability, as established by guidelines which necessitate careful consideration of the claimant's specific circumstances and future prospects.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections relevant to the determination of compensation in incidents of personal injury and the loss of earning capacity - The court addressed principles concerning the effects of permanent disability on earning capacity, referring specifically to the guidelines in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 (1) SCC 343 (Paras 12, 20).

(B) Assessment of damages - The court highlighted that compensation must equate to just standards rather than windfall - Compensation must reflect the actual injuries and resultant afflictions experienced by the claimant (Paras 16, 20).

(C) Injuries sustained - The claimant, aged 20, suffered an 85% disability to his left hand due to an accident on 8.3.2018, leading to amputation of fingers, and required extensive medical treatment (Paras 2, 3, 16, 24).

(D) Appellate considerations - The court examined whether the lower court's multiplier method applied in determining compensation was properly justified and should be upheld (Paras 12, 24).

Findings of Court:
The trial court's assessment awarded a total of Rs.43,96,400/-, which the appellate court subsequently modified to Rs.25,82,000/- considering partial disability and other factors impacting the claimant's future prospects (Paras 24, 25).

Issues: The primary issue was the appropriateness of the multiplier method utilized by the trial court in measuring compensation for temporary losses of income due to the accident (Para 12).

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court established that while age and potential income are vital for determining compensation, the actual operational capacity post-injury must be evaluated to determine just compensation - Affirmed the principle that not every disability equates to total loss of earning capacity (Paras 14, 20).

Result: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed; compensation awarded modified to Rs.25,82,000/- with interest (Para 25).

JUDGMENT :

R.POORNIMA, J.

The appellant / 2nd respondent / Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against judgment and decree dated 14.07.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1298 of 2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court) Madurai.

2. Brief case of the claimant before the lower Court are as follows:

(a) On 8.3.2018, the petitioner after his work returned from Thalavaipuram to Coimbatore, he was travelling in a private bus named as Jaya Travels bearing registration No.TN.76 U 3499. The bus was driven by the first respondent, driver, in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and regulation.

(b) When the bus was nearing Killani Nursing College, Rajapalayam to Madurai Road at about 8.30 p.m., the first respondent’s driver turned the bus at an L-bend with high speed. Due to the rash and negligent driving, he could not control the bus and the bus was capsized, due to the sudden impact, the petitioner sustained injuries all over the body viz., left hand index, middle, ring and small fingers were severed in the accident.

(c) The petitioner was taken to the government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and took treatment as inpatient from 09.03.2018 to 05.04.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted at Rex Ortho Hospital, Coimbatore, where artificial finger were implanted in his left hand index and middle fingers by way of operation. The petitioner spent nearly Rs.1,00,000/- for that operation. The medical experts wanted to further operate on his middle and small fingers. The accident happened only due to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent’s driver.

(d) A criminal case has been registered against the first respondent’s driver at Kallupatti Police Station in Crime No.53 of 2018, under sections 279, 337 of I.P.C. The case is under investigation.

(e) The petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body, and his left hand amputated due to finger injuries. The petitioner sustained permanent disability. He is unable to lift articles and pursue his professional work in engineering . He suffered immense pain and suffering at the time of undergoing treatment.

(f) At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 20 years and he was hale and healthy,he is the only breadwinner of his family. After the accident, he was not able to do his normal work and he lost his professional income due to amputation of his left hand fingers. The petitioner and his family member are kept in the dark. He has claimed Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) as compensation. 3. The case was filed against the driver and the insurance company. The first respondent, driver did not appear and was called absent and set ex-parte.

4. The second respondent filed their counter denying all the allegations, including the petitioner earning capacity, and the manner of accident. The respondent stated that at the time of accident, the bus was properly driven by the first respondent, at that time, the petitioner was in a sleeping mood. When the bus slowly turned on L bend near Killani Nursing College, the petitioner lost his balance and fell out of the bus and sustained injuries. Accident happened only due to negligence act of the petitioner and the first respondent is not responsible for the same.

5. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner has been examined as PW1 exhibit P1 to P9 were marked. The medical board issued disability certificate which was marked as Ex.C1.

6. After hearing, both side, the, trial, judge awarded compensation of Rs.43,96,400/- under the following heads :

Permanent disabilityRs.38,55,600/-
Pain and sufferingsRs.2,00,000/-
Medical expensesRs.2,95,300/-
Extra nourishmentRs.25,000/-
NursingRs.15,500/-
Travel expensesRs.5,000/-
TotalRs.43,96,400/-

The learned Judge directed the the second respondent to pay the entire amount.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the applicant who is the 2nd respondent before the lower Court against

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