Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 36193
MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD – Appellant
Versus
PRABHU – Respondent
CMA/3237/2014
The court clarified the principles for determining the quantum of compensation in motor accident cases, including the multiplier method for calculating loss of earning power and the factors to be considered when awarding compensation for loss of amenities and pain and sufferings.
Headnote:
MOTOR ACCIDENT - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - [INJURY SUSTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN A ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT] - [INSURANCE COMPANY HELD JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION] - [TRIBUNAL'S AWARD MODIFIED BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT AWARDED TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES AND PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENHANCING THE AMOUNT AWARDED TOWARDS LOSS OF EARNING POWER]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, aged 23, sustained a Grade III SC fracture of the right femur and a fracture of the 9th and 10th ribs on the left side in a road traffic accident. He underwent multiple surgeries and was left with a permanent disability of 80% in the right leg and 35% whole body disability.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The court found that the tribunal had erred in awarding an excessive amount for loss of amenities and pain and sufferings, and had awarded an insufficient amount for loss of earning power. The court modified the tribunal's award accordingly.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the petitioner? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal was appropriate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the petitioner because the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the insured vehicle. 2. The court held that the tribunal had erred in awarding an excessive amount for loss of amenities and pain and sufferings, and had awarded an insufficient amount for loss of earning power. The court modified the tribunal's award accordingly.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the insurance company's appeal and partly allowed the petitioner's cross-objection. The court modified the tribunal's award by reducing the amount awarded towards loss of amenities and pain and sufferings and enhancing the amount awarded towards loss of earning power.
C.M.A.3237 of 2014 & Cross Obj.63 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on
12.12.2022
Pronounced on
03.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2014
and
Cross Obj.No.63 of 2015
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2014
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Dwaraka, 2nd Floor, 79, Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai 34.
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Prabu,
No.47, Lakshmipuram,
Vadapalani,
Chennai 600 026.
2.Sathish,
No.1/460, Arignar Anna Street,
Medavakkam,
Chennai 34.
... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against
the Decree and Judgment dated 23.04.2014, made in MCOP.No.2319 of 2010,
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Court of Small Causes) of
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.3237 of 2014 & Cross Obj.63 of 2015
Madras.
For Appellant
: Mr.K.Vinod
For Respondents
: Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja (for R1)
for Mr.V.Velu
R2 – Exparte
Cross Obj.No.63 of 2015
Prabu,
No.47, Lakshmipuram,
Vadapalani,
Chennai 600 026.
... Cross Appellant
Vs.
1.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Dwarka, 2nd Floor,
79, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai 34.
2.Sathish,
No.1/460, Arignar Anna Street,
Medavakkam,
Chennai 34.
... Respondents
Prayer: Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, against the
Award dated 23.04.2014, made in MCOP.No.2319 of 2010, on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.3237 of 2014 & Cross Obj.63 of 2015
For Appellant
: Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
for Mr.V.Velu
For Respondents
: Mr.K.Vinod (for R1)
R2 – No appearance
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
The Appeal has been filed against the Decree and Judgment dated
23.04.2014, made in MCOP.No.2319 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Insurance Company is the Appellant herein, challenging the award
passed in MCOP.No.2319 of 2010, dated 23.04.2014, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/V Court of Small Causes, Chennai. For the sake of
convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial
Court.
3.The Insurance Company filed the above Appeal on the point of
quantum and liability and Cross Objection was filed on the point of quantum.
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.3237 of 2014 & Cross Obj.63 of 2015
4.During the trial, on the side of the claim Petitioner, PW1 & PW2 were
examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P.25 were marked and on the side of the Respondents,
none was examined and no documents were marked.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and learned
counsel for the claim Petitioner.
6.The claim Petitioner filed MCOP.No.2319 of 2010, seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident on
23.09.2009. In the counter affidavit filed before the trial Court, the Insurance
Company raised a plea that there is a delay of 5 months in filing the FIR and
stated that the factum of the accident has to be disbelieved. The trial Court has
rejected the said contention and held that on combined reading of PW1 coupled
with Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, the accident was taken place on 23.09.2009 and further
held that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the Insurance
Company/Appellant herein. The Insurance Company took a plea that there is a
delay in filing the FIR, the Tribunal has rightly said that in the absence of any
evidence to substantiate the plea, the delay in FIR cannot be a ground, since
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.3237 of 2014 & Cross Obj.63 of 2015
PW1 and his wife are in the hospital during the period of surgery and the same
created some delay. Hence this Court finds that manner of the accident, rash
and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle, insured with the
Insurance Company are proved in the manner known to law and hence, the
Insurance Company
