T. Reddiamma vs P. Thiyagarajan

R. Subbiah, J.—Both these appeals have been filed as against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Ranipet. C.M.A. No. 282 of 2014 has been filed by the Insurance Company stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is extremely on the higher side and proper reduction has to be made. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation C.M.A. No. 2808 of 2014 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount. Since both these appeals arise out of a common award, these appeals are being dispose of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per the rankings before the Tribunal. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 2808 of 2014 will be referred to as claimant and the Insurance Company will be referred to as respondent.

It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 22.05.2010 when he was riding a two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 24 X 2283 having her minor daughter as a pillion rider, a car bearing Registration No. TN02 AK 4848 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the two wheeler and thus, caused the accident. In the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and hence, she made a claim as against the owner of the car, namely the first respondent in the M.C.O.P and the Insurance Company, the second respondent in the M.C.O.P. claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.

The case of the appellant was resisted by the Insurance Company by taking a defence that the driver of the insured vehicle, namely the car bearing Registration No. TN02 AK 4848 did not have a valid Driving Licence and hence, there is violation to the conditions of policy and the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

In order to prove the claim, on the side of the claimant, she examined herself as PW1, besides examining one Dr. R. Riazahamed as PW2 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the second respondent Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence, has rejected the defence put forth by the Insurance Company and thereafter, by making calculation under different heads, has awarded the entire compensation as claimed in the claim petition. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed.

Heard the submissions made on either side.

So far as the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is concerned, I am of the opinion that though they have taken a defence that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid Driving Licence, they have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I find that on account of the accident the victim had sustained the following injuries:

Type 3A shaft of Femur Fracture Left side

Type 3A Schatzkar 4 Left Tibia

Closed Right Fibula Head Fracture

Left Neck of Femur Fracture

The doctor, who was examined as PW2, had assessed the disability at 70%. The Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW2, has passed an award for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The break-up details of the amount awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:

Now, C.M.A. No. 282 of 2014 has been filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and C.M.A. No. 2808 of 2014 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount.

Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the materials available on record and I find that disability fixed by PW2 at 70% is extremely on the higher side. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by fixing the disability at 30%, the amount awarded by the Tribunal could be modified. If a sum of Rs. 4500/- is taken as the monthly income and the multiplier "16" is applied, the compensation under the head permanent disability in proportionate to 30% disability comes to Rs. 2,59,200/-. Hence, a sum of Rs. 9,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head permanent disability is reduced to Rs. 2,59,200/-. Considering the nature of injuries, I am of the opinion that the victim might not have carried out her avocation at least for a period of 6 months. Hence, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is hereby awarded under the head loss of income at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under the head pain and suffering, which amount appears to be on the lower side and hence, the same is hereby enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-. Further I find that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head loss of amenities. I ma of the opinion that the claimant would find it difficult to carry on her avocation as she was doing before the accident and hence, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded under the head loss of amenities. Considering the long duration of treatment undergone by the victim, she is entitled for compensation under the head attender charges. Hence, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is hereby awarded under the head Attender charges. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head extra-nourishment and transportation respectively, appear to be on the lower side and hence, the same are hereby enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- each under those heads. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 10,28,900/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced to Rs. 4,21,200/-. Except the above modifications, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed in all other aspects. The break-up details of the modified award amount is as follows:

In the result, C.M.A. No. 2808 of 2014 filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount is dismissed and C.M.A. No. 282 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 10,28,900/- to Rs. 4,21,200/-. The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount with proportionate amount and cost, less the amount already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant in C.M.A. No. 2808 of 2014 is permitted to withdraw the same on due application. The Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the excess amount, if any. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.