IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.11.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

C.M.A.No.3042 of 2008

and

M.P.No.1 of 2008

HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Motor Third Party Cell, Raheja Towers

Ground Floor, No.177, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600 002. ..Appellant/2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1. L.Seethapathy,

...1^st Respondent/Claimant

2. May (India) Laboratories P Ltd.,

No.3, Lakshmanan Street, T. Nagar,

Chennai- 600 017.

...2ndRespondent/1^st Respondent

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as against the Award of the

Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-judge) at Ponneri

in MACTOP No.348 of 2004 dated 14.03.2007.

For Appellant

: Mr. K. Suryanarayanan

For Respondent : Mr. N.Elayaraja for R1

R2-Served-No appearance(Exparte)

J U D G M E N T

The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance

Company challenging the award dated 14.3.2007 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Ponneri in

MACTOP.No.348 of 2004.

2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant

appeal are as follows;

(i) the 1^st respondent sustained injuries on 11.4.2004 as a

result of an accident caused by a car bearing Registration

No.TN-09-AD 5238 owned by the 2^nd respondent and insured with

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the appellant. The 1^st respondent preferred a claim before the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.3

lakhs for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the

accident.

(ii) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by its award

dated 14.3.2007 in MACTOP.No.348 of 2004 directed the appellant

to pay the 1^st respondent a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- together with

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim

till the date of realisation.

(iii) Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by

the tribunal, the instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance

Company.

3. Heard Mr.K.Suryanarayanan, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr.N. Elayaraja, learned counsel for the 1^st

respondent. The 2^nd respondent who is the owner of the insured

vehicle has remained exparte both before the tribunal as well as

before this Court.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the

compensation awarded by the tribunal to the 1^st respondent under

the impugned award is an excessive compensation. According to

him, the tribunal has erroneously awarded Rs.18,000/- towards

loss of earnings, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and sufferings,

Rs.70,000/- towards disability and Rs.50,000/- towards, loss of

earning capacity.

In all, a total compensation of

Rs.1,68,000/- was awarded by the tribunal, which, according to

him, is excessive.

5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the

tribunal ought not to have awarded a compensation towards

disability as well as towards loss of earning capacity as it

would amount to duplication for the same head of compensation.

6. The 1^st respondent has sustained fracture of thigh bone

and underwent surgery and was hospitalised in Government

Hospital for almost one month. The 1^st respondent was a driver

of a bore well machine and even though he had claimed that he

was earning a monthly income of Rs.4500/-, the tribunal has

assessed the monthly income only at Rs.3000/-. Considering

the nature of injuries sustained by the 1^st respondent, as well

as his age and his avocation, this Court is of the considered

view that the compensation awarded to the 1^st respondent under

the impugned award is a just compensation. Further, it is now

well settled that the Courts are empowered to grant compensation

separately towards disability as well as towards loss of

earning capacity. In such circumstances, this Court is of the

considered view that there is