C.M.A.No.2484 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

14.12.2022

Pronounced on

27 .01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

C.M.A.No.2484 of 2014

and Cros.Obj.No.121 of 2014

C.M.A.No.2484 of 2014

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

Divisional Office 10

No.79, Uttamar Gandhi Salai

Chennai – 600 034

.. Appellant

Versus

1.M.Gowrishankar

2.S.Prashanthi

.. Respondents

Cros.Obj.No.121 of 2014

M.Gowrishankar

.. Appellant

Versus

1.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

Divisional Office 10

No.79, Uttamar Gandhi Salai

Chennai – 600 034

2.S.Prashanthi

.. Respondents

1/9

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

C.M.A.No.2484 of 2014

Appeal and Cross Objections filed against the Judgment and Decree

dated 07.02.2014 made in MCOP.No.5631 of 2011 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.

For Appellant

: Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy for appellant

in CMA and 1^st Respondent in Cross

Objection.

For Respondents

: Mrs.P.T.Salim Fathima for R1

and Cross Objector in Cross Objection

R2 - No appearance

COMMON JUDGMENT

The appellant herein, the second respondent before the Tribunal has filed

this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated

07.02.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.5631 of 2011 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai, on the

ground of liability and quantum.

2. The first respondent herein namely Mr.M.Gowrishankar sustained

injury in the road accident happened on 26.09.2019.

3. The manner of the accident, factum of the accident, rash and

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle are not in dispute.

2/9

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

C.M.A.No.2484 of 2014

4. In the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, the Appellant

Insurance Company has taken a specific plea that at the time of the accident, the

driver of the offending vehicle (insured with the Appellant Insurance

Company) was not having a valid driving license and the quantum claimed is

excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, the injured namely the first respondent herein has

examined himself as PW1 and the Doctor as PW2. Ex.P1 to P9 were marked.

On behalf of the Insurance Company, the Sub-Inspector of Police was

examined as RW1 and the staff of the Insurance Company was examined as

RW2. Ex.R1 to R4 were marked.

6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidences, the

Tribunal has fixed the notional income as Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others

.Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1

(SC), the Tribunal fixed the loss of earning power as Rs.2,40,000/- (i.e., Rs.

5000 x 12 x 16 x 25/100 = 2,40,000). Furthermore, the Trial Court granted Loss

3/9

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

C.M.A.No.2484 of 2014

of income for three months as 15000/-(Rs.5000 x 3), transportation expenses at

Rs.5000/-, extra nourishment as Rs.5000/-, damages to clothes as Rs.1000/-,

Medical expenses Rs.39,500/-, attender charges Rs. 5000/-, pain and suffering

as Rs.75000/- and loss of amenities as Rs. 75000/- totalling to the tune of

Rs.4,60,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,60,500/- with interest.

Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials

placed on record.

8. On perusing the nature of injury sustained by the first respondent

claimant, I find that the Ex.P2-Discharge summary, issued by Government

General Hospital, shows that the petitioner sustained fracture of shaft of

humeur left and facial injuries and was treated as inpatient from 26.9.11 to

1.10.11 thereby “U” slab was applied for fracture of shaft of humerus and

thereafter referred to Ortho OP for facial injuries. Ex.P4 Discharge Summary

i