CMA.No.2186 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CMA.No.2186 of 2022 United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, E-11, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Near Bye Pass Road, Rayakotta Fly Over, Krishnagiri – 635 001. ... Appellant Vs. 1.Chandran 2.J.Sivashankar ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2021, passed in MCOP.No.583 of 2019, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Krishnagiri. For Appellant : M/s.Sree Vidhya For Respondents : Mr.S.Murugan for R1 Returned Notice for R2 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2186 of 2022 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 2. It is not in dispute, the first respondent/claimant suffered grievous injures in a road accident that had taken place on 16.01.2019. He was proceeding in his Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing registration No.TN-24-AJ-1399 in Krishnagiri to Chennai National Highways. At that point of time, the car belonging to the first respondent insured with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of the claimant from behind, as a result of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injury in his right leg knee and ankle. Since the claimant suffered permanent disability, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. 3. The second respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex- parte before the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident as averred in the claim petition. It was the case of the appellant that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2186 of 2022 4. The Tribunal based on evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car belonging to the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant. The Tribunal quantified the compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.8,88,173/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has come by way of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that though the medical board assessed the disability and issued disability certificate fixing disability at 30%, in the absence of any evidence to show that the disability suffered by the claimant interfered with his avocation, the Tribunal was not right in adopting multiplier method. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant by taking this Court to the award passed by the Tribunal would submit that taking into consideration, the nature of injury and resultant disability, the Tribunal rightly adopted multiplier method and it requires no interference. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2186 of 2022 7. Though very many grounds were raised in the appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant confined his arguments only on the question of quantum. Therefore, facts necessary to decide other questions like, negligence and liability are not considered in this appeal. 8. A perusal of the discharge slips Exs.P7 and P9 would indicate that the claimants suffered fracture in both the bones of his right leg. The details of the fracture suffered by the claimant is noted as follows in Ex.P9. Comminuted Fracture both bone right leg, Fracture Bimalleolar right side Fracture Head of fibula right side. 9. It is seen from Exs.P7 and P9, the claimant has been in hospital during a period from 16.01.2019 to 02.02.2019, 27.03.2019 and 28.03.2019, 12.04.2019 to 15.04.2019 and 03.06.2019 to 05.06.2019. Therefore, it is clear, the claimant was in prolonged treatment. 10. The Medical Board which examined the claimant issued Ex.C1-disability certificate fixing the disability at 30%. The 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2186 of 2022 Tribunal had reduced the same and fixed the functional disability at 25%. The Tribunal which had the opportunity of observing the claimant, when he was examined as PW.1 observed as follows: “tprhuizapd; nghJ k/rh/1I Muha;e;jjpy; mth; epw;gjpYk;. elg;gjpYk; rpukk; bjd;gl;lJ/ tyJ fhiy rw;W jh';fpathW ,lJ fhiy ghuk; bfhLj;J ele;J te;jhh;/ mtUf;F go Vwtjpy;. ,w';Ftjpy;. ePz;l neuk; epw;gjpYk; rpukk; ,Uf;Fk;/ mtUila ,ay;ghd eil khwpapUf;Fk;/” 11. Therefore, taking into consideration the difficulty in walking and standing, the Tribunal applied multiplier method. As per the averment in claim petition, the claimant was Mason earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The disability suffered by the claimant would certainly interfere with his avocation. Therefore, taking into consideration the difficulty in walking and standing, the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier method. The Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.8,500/- only and applied 25% future prospects. The accident had occurred on 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2186 of 2022 16.01.2019, the amount of Rs.8,500/- fixed by the Tribunal is very very conservative one. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company has not made out any case to interfere with the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal under the head disability. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head medical expenses is based on evidence available on record. The amount awarded under the head transport expenses, nutritious expenses, attender charges and pain and suffering, loss of amenities are reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Therefore, I do not find anything to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. 07.03.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ub 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2186 of 2022 To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Krishnagiri. 2.The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2186 of 2022 S.SOUNTHAR, J. ub CMA.No.2186 of 2022 07.03.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis