The United India Insurance v. Margaret Mary

J U D G M E N T The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 01.10.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.1334 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub Judge, Trichy.

¶2The Appellant/Insurer, who was directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,49,850/- to the injured claimant for the disability suffered by her, consequent to an accident occurred on 04.02.2006, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded at by the Tribunal.

¶3The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that the claimant has suffered 20% of disability as per disability certificate issued to her and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have applied the multiplier method. He would further submit that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the injured was not in a position to work in any job and as such, the Tribunal has committed error in computing the compensation by adopting multiplier method.

¶4The learned counsel for the first respondent/injured would submit that the claimant has suffered crush injury on her right foot, that the toes of right foot were amputated and that P.W.1/Medical Officer has certified that the claimant has suffered permanent disablement and that since the disability certificate has been issued stating that the claimant has suffered 20% disability, the Tribunal taking note of the amputation of toes, has rightly applied the multiplier method.

5.The only point that arises for consideration is, as to whether the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper and is in accordance with law ?

¶6The case of the claimant is that due to the accident, she had suffered multiple injuries all over her body including crush injury over the right foot along with loss of fourth, fifth toes, distal ½ of 3rd toe and injuries over the second toe with skin loss over dorsum of foot; that the claimant was admitted in KMC Hospital, Trichy and was taking in-patient treatment from 04.02.2006 to 09.02.2006; that subsequently, she was again admitted on 06.03.2006 and after inpatient treatment, she was discharged on the same day, that since there was amputation of toes, she was not in a position to stand and sit in the floor and that she had suffered permanent disability.

¶7The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record including the evidence of Medical Officer, has fixed the permanent disability at 20% and by adopting multiplier method, has granted Rs.2,55,980/- for loss of earning capacity.

¶8As already pointed out, the main defence of the insurer is that since the claimant has only suffered 20 % of disability and there was no evidence to show that she was not in a position to do any avocation, the adoption of multiplier method is not proper and hence, the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered.

¶9In Ex.A.2 wound certificate, it has been stated that the claimant has sustained major crush injury on her right foot with loss of fourth, fifth toes, distal ½ of 3rd toe and lacerated injury on second toe and on that basis, they have given an opinion that the injuries are grievous in nature.

¶10In Ex.A.3/discharge summary issued by the KMC Hospital, it is evident that the claimant was admitted on 04.02.2006 and was discharged on 09.02.2006 and surgical procedure was done for wound debridement and shortening and closure of 2nd and 3rd toes and that the injured was also treated for multiple fracture with traumatic amputation of 2nd and 5th toes right foot.

¶11It is further evident that the injured was again admitted in the KMC Hospital, on 06.03.2006 for doing SSG and was discharged on that day itself. The Medical Officer/P.W.2, who had issued disability certificate under Ex.A.20, in his evidence would say that the injured has suffered crush injury on her right foot, that the tip of toes 2 to 5 were amputated and that he has fixed the disability at 20%. In cross examination, he would say that the disability suffered by the injured is permanent in nature; that she is not in a position to do the routine work and it is very difficult to walk by placing her foot flatly on the floor.

¶12The Tribunal, considering the fact that the injured had completed Computer Diploma Course and B.Com., Course and was working in First Source Company and also considering the admission letter and the subsequent order for restructure of salary issued by the injured's employer under Ex.A.15, has rightly fixed the monthly salary of injury at Rs.6,274/-. Considering the nature of injury and also the amputation of the toes of right foot and the nature of job, the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier method and arrived at Rs.2,55,980/-.

¶13The Tribunal has also granted Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment ; Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses; Rs.15,000/-for attendant expenses; and Rs.28,870/- for medical expenses under Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7, all totalling Rs.3,49,850/-.

¶14The appellant has not disputed the amount awarded under the other heads. On considering the entire facts and circumstances, the quantum of compensation awarded at by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with and this Court is in entire agreement with the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this Court concludes that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Considering the other facts and circumstances, this Court further decides that the parties are to be directed to bear their own costs.

¶12In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 01.10.2010, made in M.C.O.P.No.1334 of 200 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub Judge, Trichy, is confirmed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

24.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No das To

¶1The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K.MURALI SHANKAR,J. das and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011

24.07.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 11.07.2023 Pronounced On : 24.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 The United India Insurance Co., Ltd., 74 A, Salai Road, Trichy -18. : Appellant / 2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Margaret Mary : 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.V.Ravindren : 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award and decree dated 01.10.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.1334 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub Judge, Trichy. For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali For Respondents : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj, for R1. : No Appearance, for R2.