The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs R. Chellappa

S. Vimala, J.—The claimant, R.Chellappa, aged 45 years, a businessman, earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month, who suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 15.04.2005, filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.No. 222 of 2006 claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation.

The claim was disputed by the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

The tribunal gave a finding that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident but as there was a valid coverage of insurance, the insurance company should pay the amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

The tribunal quantified the compensation payable at Rs. 4,65,400/- and the break up details are as furnished hereunder:

Loss of earning (Rs.24,000/- x 12 x 80/100) : Rs. 2,30,400.00

Pain and sufferings : Rs. 20,000.00

Extra nourishment : Rs. 10,000.00

Transport expenses : Rs. 5,000.00

Medical expenses : Rs. 2,00,000.00

Total : Rs. 4,65,400.00

This award is under challenge in this appeal.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the award to be given by the claims tribunal should be a just compensation and even though mathematical precision is not possible, the tribunal has to adopt the rational and judicious approach and if that is adopted, the tribunal would not have awarded a sum of Rs. 4,65,400/- which would amount to granting of bonanza. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the details regarding the nature of injury and the nature of permanent disability suffered by the claimant. In the claim petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a businessman and he was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

A perusal of the evidence regarding disability would go to show that the claimant has suffered cranial fracture leading to exposition of brain. In fact, there was missing of cranial bone on the right side. Part of the left leg and left hand has lost the functional ability. The claimant has lost the sensation in part of the body. Taking into account the ailment and the consequent paralysis of the functioning of the body, the Doctor has certified the disability at 90%. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that there is no correlation between the disability and the nature of the job and therefore, the tribunal ought not to have accepted the disability at 90%. From the nature of the disability spoken to in the evidence, one can reasonably conclude that irrespective of the nature of the job, the disability over the brain and the head would create problem and therefore, the disability would certainly affect the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, rightly the tribunal has adopted multiplier method of quantification in calculating the loss of earning capacity. Considering the nature of the injury and the nature of ailment, the amount awarded towards medical expenses or the amount awarded under any other head cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, the challenge made regarding quantum of compensation cannot be appreciated and the award given by the tribunal is confirmed.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that even though the tribunal has ordered pay and recovery, the tribunal did not indicate in the order itself that the insurance company will have the liberty of executing the decree directly without being driven to the necessity of filing a separate suit and this would be a handicap for the insurance company to straightaway file the execution petition. It is a settled position, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Nanjappan and Others, that there is no necessity for the insurance company to file any separate suit for recovery of compensation paid already. It is open to the insurance company to file an execution petition directly.

With the above observations made, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.