Branch Manager v. Viji @ Vijay

JUDGMENT This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Krishnagiri, in MCOP No.196 of 2018 dated

22.08.2019.

¶2The first respondent is the claimant. The case of the claimant is that on 19.06.2015, he was riding an auto rickshaw from Pochampalli to Erumathur. While so, at about 07.00 p.m., when he was coming near the Arasampatti Government Higher Secondary School, the offending vehicle, which was a tipper lorry, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed against the claimant's auto. As a result, the claimant suffered grievous injuries and underwent treatment as an inpatient for 6 days. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal.

¶3The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶4Having rendered the above finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.9,91,759/- under various heads as follows: S.No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.)

¶1Disability 7,49,700

¶2Medical Expenses 1,89,059

¶3Transportation Expenses 8,000

¶4Extra Nourishment & Attender Charges 12,000

¶5Pain and Suffering 16,000

¶6Social Amenities 16,000

¶7Damage of clothes 1,000 Total 9,91,759 The above compensation amount was directed to be paid by the appellant/Insurance Company together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

¶5The first respondent has been served with notice and his name has also been printed in the cause list, however, there is no appearance either in person or through counsel. The second respondent appeared through counsel.

¶6Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and carefully considered the materials available on record and also went through the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶7The main ground urged on the side of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, which was marked as Ex.C1, fixed the functional disability at 35% and proceeded to apply the multiplier method even though the Medical Board had assessed the disability at 20%. It is further contended that it is not a case where the Tribunal should have adopted the multiplier method.

¶8The Medical Board had assessed the permanent disability of the claimant at 20%. There is no material to conclude that the claimant suffered from any functional disability resulting in a loss of earning capacity. While so, the Tribunal, without assigning any reasons, fixed the functional disability at 35% and also adopted the multiplier method. This procedure adopted by the Tribunal is unsustainable, which warrants the interference of this Court.

¶9The accident in this case took place in the year 2015 and this is a case where the percentage method must be adopted. Hence, this Court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.5,000/- per percentage of disability. Accordingly, the compensation under the head 'Disability' is fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 20% of disability).

¶10The compensation fixed under the other heads is fair and reasonable and does not require the interference of this Court.

¶11In the light of the above discussion, this Court modifies the compensation in the following manner: Sl.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified by this Court (in Rs.)

¶1Disability 7,49,700 1,00,000

¶2Medical Expenses 1,89,059 1,89,059

¶3Transportation Expenses 8,000 8,000

¶4Extra Nourishment & Attender Charges 12,000 12,000

¶5Pain and Suffering 16,000 16,000

¶6Social Amenities 16,000 16,000

¶7Damage of clothes 1,000 1,000 Total 9,91,759 3,42,059 Rounded off 3,42,060

¶12The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.9,91,759/- is reduced to Rs.3,42,060/-. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified compensation, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.

¶13In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

16.07.2026 ham To

¶1The Special Sub Judge, Special Sub Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.

¶2The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras. N. ANAND VENKATESH

, J.

ham and C.M.P.No.3814 of 2023

16.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.07.2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH and C.M.P.No.3814 of 2023 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office III, Arjunaa Tower, 248/164, Cherry Road, Salem – 636 001. ... Appellant Vs. 1. Viji @ Vijay 2. Arumugam 3. The Manager, Shree Parasakthi Crusher Pvt. Ltd., Varagambadi, Masinaickenpatty Village, Ayothiyapattanam Post, Salem District – 636 103. ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 22.08.2019. made in MCOP No.196 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri. For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran For Respondents : Mr.P.Ezhil Nilavan for R2