Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Mariappan And Others

N. Kirubakaran,J

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company as against the award of Rs.23,78,000/- passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional Sub Court), Cuddalore, in M.C.O.P. No. 3105 of 2012 by order dated 31.03.2016, in favour of the 1st respondent/claimant, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which occurred on 05.08.2012, when he was riding his motor cycle, which was hit by a Innova Car, belonging to the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant, coming in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner.

Heard Mr.S. Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the only question raised is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

According to Mr.S. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant, the application of multiplier method for 80% disability sustained by the claimant is unwarranted. Moreover, the determination of percentage of disability at 80% itself, is on the higher side.

A perusal of the records would reveal that the claimant sustained serious injuries as proved by Ex-P19, Disability Certificate issued by the Doctor, P.W.2. The claimant, who examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor, who was examined as P.W.2, have elaborately spoken about the injuries and fractures sustained by the claimant. He had sustained fracture of right forearm elbow, fracture of both bones in right leg, head injury and crush injury on right leg. Initially, after the accident, the claimant was admitted in Cuddalore Government Headquarters Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai, where he took treatment as an inpatient from 05.08.2012 to 28.11.2012, continuously, for about three months. On 05.08.2012, the claimant underwent a surgery for fixation of metal wires externally on right leg. To set right the fractured bones in the right hand, another surgery was done and metal wires were fixed inside. Since both bones on right leg had crushed into pieces and the tissues had also got damaged, he was given treatment for the same. For loss of tissues in the right hand, tissue was harvested from the abdomen area and after placing the right hand in the said area, suturing and surgery was done and after 21 days, another surgery was done to remove the sutures and to separate the right hand from the abdomen. As one of the bones of the right hand as well as the muscles got completely damaged, the same was removed and the claimant is left with only one bone in the right hand, thereby depriving him from using his right hand for eating, to lift things etc. It is further seen that the claimant's right hand has lost its functional ability, mobility and strength to a great extent and it is only hanging ornamentally. Further, there is swelling in the right hand and on the whole, it looks very ugly. Besides, due to loss of Red Blood Corpuscles and White Blood Corpuscles in the right leg, tissue was harvested from the left leg and surgery was done to fix the same in the affected area in the right leg. Further, both the legs were bound by plaster cast, upto the hip. The claimant took treatment as an outpatient on 21.12.2012, 18.01.2013 and 01.02.2013 and on 02.02.2013, he was advised to undergo surgery for fracture of right leg and damage of tissues. On 04.02.2013, the claimant was operated upon to remove the wires fixed in the right leg and thereafter, his right leg was treated by covering it with plaster cast. He underwent treatment on 02.02.2013, 01.03.2013, 29.03.2013, 07.05.2013, 31.05.2013, 16.07.2013 and 06.08.2013 and again, he took continuous treatment as an inpatient from 12.08.2013 to 25.11.2013. As the bones in the right leg did not unite, the affected bone was removed and instead, three rings were fixed outside by way of surgery and he was under intensive treatment from 05.12.2013 to 27.12.2013 for a period of 23 days. The sensation in his right leg has got reduced and there is shortening of his right leg by 10cms when compared to his left leg, due to which, he is unable to walk using his right leg and he can walk only with help of a walker or with the help of someone, that too, to a short distance. Since the wound in the right leg did not heal, pus is always oozing out. In view of the above, P.W.2, Doctor, deposed that the claimant sustained 80% disability and loss of earning power was rightly determined by the Tribunal as 100%.

Taking into consideration, the plight of the claimant, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method and taking the monthly income of the injured as Rs.9,000/- and loss of earning power as 100% and adopting multiplier 16, based on the age of the claimant, determined as 33 years, arrived at Rs.17,28,000/-towards "Permanent Disability", which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. For Transportation, a sum of Rs.88,300/- was awarded and the same is confirmed. The amounts awarded under the other heads, namely, Rs.2,00,000/-each towards "Pain and Suffering" and "Loss of Amenities", Rs.50,000/- towards "Attendant Charges", Rs.10,000/- towards "Extra Nourishment", Rs.1000/-towards "Damages (Dress) and Rs.1,00,000/- towards "Future Medical Expenses" are all confirmed. The award of the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.23,78,000/- stands confirmed. The rate of interest awarded @ 7.5% per annum also remains unaltered.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, with interest and costs, before the Tribunal, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the same to the bank account of the 1st respondent/claimant, through RTGS, within a period of one week therefrom.

It is made clear that based on the contention of the appellant alone, this judgment has been passed and this will not act as a res judicata for the claimant to file an appeal, if he is aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded.