Advocates:
['M B GOPALAN', '', 'N VIJAYARAGHAVAN', 'M B RAGHAVAN', 'CHENNAI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.04.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN

C.M.A. No. 594 of 2015

&

M.P. No. 1 of 2015

M/s. Future Generali India Insurance

Co. Ltd.,

Plot No.55, (Old Plot No. 27),

1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd Floor,

Vijaya Raghava Road,

T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

..Appellant/2nd Respondent

Vs.

1.

R. Murthy

2.

P.R.R. Travels,

No.1, Puduchathiram Village,

Thiruvallur High Road,

Thirumazhisai – 601 207.

..Respondents/ Petitioner &

Respondents

Prayer:

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor

Vehicle act 1988 as against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2014

passed in M.C.O.P. No. 4359 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

For Appellant

::

Mrs. Harini for

Mr.M.B. Gopalan

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the

Insurance Company as against the award of Rs.6,44,700/- passed by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai,

in favour of the 1^st respondent, for the injuries sustained by him, in

the accident, which occurred on 20.08.2012.

2.

Heard Mrs. Harini, learned counsel representing Mr.M.B.

Gopalan for the appellant.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that

the amounts awarded under various heads are excessive and the award

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

passed by the Tribunal, to the tune of Rs.6,44,700/- is on the higher

side. She would specifically point out that the claimant was

hospitalised only for five days initially and subsequently, for three

days. Therefore, the amount of Rs.60,000/- awarded towards “Loss of

income during treatment” is on the higher side and therefore, she

seeks reduction of the award amount.

4.

However, a close scrutiny of the award would show that the

claimant sustained Grade I compound comminuted fracture of both bones

of right leg, proximal third middle third junction with ipsilateral,

fracture distal 3^rd tibia with fracture 3, 4, 5 PPx right hand and

next of 5^th MC right hand and was treated as an in-patient from

20.08.2012 to 25.08.2012 and underwent surgery. Plates were

implanted in his right leg tibia and patella and bone grafting was

also done. Thereafter, he was treated as an in-patient from

08.03.2014 to 11.03.2014 during which period, he underwent surgery

for implant removal and sequestrectomy was also done. The above

facts are proved by Ex-P3, Accident Register issued by Stanley

Hospital,, Chennai, Ex-P4, Discharge Summary issued by Right

Hospitals, Ex-P5, Discharge Summary issued by Cauvery Trust Hospital

and Ex-P9, Disability Certificate. That apart, P.W.2, Doctor, also

spoke about the disability sustained by the claimant, who is a Welder

by profession, aged about 50 years and assessed the disability at

60%. He would state that the fracture of patella bone was fixed with

cancellous screws and due to infection removed, right leg deformed

and scar adherence causing movement restriction by 40 degrees of leg

and knee joint. According to the Doctor, the claimant has difficulty

in standing, walking and doing active work. Further, since the

claimant sustained fracture 3, 4, 5 of the right hand fingers and

there was malunion of the fractured bones, there was restriction in

movement of fingers and right hand grip got reduced. Though the

Doctor fixed the disability at 60%, the Tribunal, taking into

consideration, the evidence of P.W.2, fixed the disability at 55%.

The said determination of disability by the Tribunal, based on P.W.2

Doctor's evidence and other medical records, cannot be found fault

with and the same is confirmed.

5.

Following the judgment of this Court rendered in Managing

Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam

Division, Trichy V. S. Kannappan reported in 2007 TN MAC Pg.1, a sum

of Rs.2000/- was awarded for each percentage of disability,

t