The quantum of compensation in motor accident cases should be determined based on the claimant's income, functional disability, and other relevant factors.

CMA.No.2060 of 2016 and Cross Objection No.37 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:

04.01.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

CMA.No.2060 of 2016 and

Cross Objection No.37 of 2022

CMP.Nos.15075 of 2016 and 17483 of 2022

The Branch Manager

National Insurance Company Limited

Erode

Appellant-CMA and

R1-Cross Objection

Vs

1. D.Balakrishnan

R1-CMA and Cross Objector

2. R.Sampath

R2-CMA and Cross Appeal

Prayer:- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection

have been filed, against the judgement and decree, dated 18.01.2016,

made in MCOP.No.1303 of 2010, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (MACT)

Tiruppur.

For Appellant

:

Ms.N.B.Surekha

For Respondent

:

Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel-R1

JUDGEMENT

(Judgement of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

1. The above appeal and cross objection are filed by the Insurance

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA.No.2060 of 2016 and Cross Objection No.37 of 2022

Company and the claimant respectively, as against the quantum of

compensation, awarded by the Chief Judicial Court (MACT) Tiruppur,

by judgement and decree, dated 18.01.2016, in MCOP.No.1303 of

2010.

2. This is a case of injury. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged

28 years and he was working as a Lecturer in Aeronautical Department

in Park College at Coimbatore. His salary certificates were produced

and marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P14 before the Tribunal. The Doctor, who

treated the claimant, has assessed the permanent/ functional disability

as 29.3% for fracture and 40% for head injury as per Ex.P8 disability

certificate. The Employer of the claimant was examined as PW.3 to

prove the income of the claimant as shown in Ex.P12 to Ex.P16. By the

impugned judgement and decree, the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.32,89,030/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the

date of the petition till the date of deposit and with proportionate costs.

Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has filed the above

appeal and the claimant has filed the above cross objection.

3. The learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company, though

advanced arguments on the liability on the ground that the claimant is

equally responsible for the accident, it is seen that the Tribunal has

given specific findings on the basis of the materials and this Court is

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA.No.2060 of 2016 and Cross Objection No.37 of 2022

unable to interfere with the same as the decision of the Tribunal is after

proper appreciation of evidence.

4. The learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company then

submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.3. He submitted that the evidence of PW.2 regarding the

permanent disability cannot be accepted as PW.2 is not the Doctor,

who treated the claimant. The learned counsel then pointed out that

the Doctor, who was examined as PW.2 and who assessed the

disability, is a Ortho Doctor and only a Neuro Surgeon can assess the

functional disability of the claimant having regard to the nature of the

injuries suffered by the claimant. The learned counsel also submitted

that the Tribunal failed to see that the claimant is continuing in service

as a Professor in the same College. The learned counsel also

challenged the findings regarding the functional disability of the

claimant.

5. The learned counsel for the cross objector submitted that the claimant

was working as a Lecturer in the Aeronautical Department in the Park

College at Coimbatore and that his salary, as per the salary certificates,

which are marked as Ex.P6 to Ex.P14, is proved by examining his

Employer as PW.3 and therefore, the monthly earning of the claimant

should be taken as Rs.18,000/- per month.

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA.No.2060 of 2016 and Cross Objection No.37 of 2