Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASReserved on:22.03.2024Pronounced on: 16.04.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020andC.M.P.No.8847 of 2020Rajendiran.. AppellantVs.1.Manivasagam2.Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hub 3rd Party Claims, Vijayalakshmi Complex First Floor, No.32/13, Phase No.2, Sathuvachari, Vellore – 632 009. .. RespondentsPrayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the compensation awarded in judgment and decree dated 10.01.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.386 of 2018 on the file of the Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / the Special Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai, by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020For Appellant: Mr.S.Panneer SelvamFor R1: No appearanceFor R2: Mr.D.BhaskaranJ U D G M E N TThe claim petitioner is the appellant herein seeking enhancement of the award granted in M.C.O.P.No.386 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the litigants status before the Trial Court.2.The manner of the accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending lorry was not in dispute and the findings rendered by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.3.Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that the injured claimant has travelled as an unauthorized passenger and hence the policy is not covered. However, based upon the admission made by R.W.2 (officer of the Insurance Company), the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the policy coverage is exceeded in respect of the coolie 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020and accordingly held that the Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with the owner of the lorry and ordered for compensation.4.As against the said finding, the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal.5.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.6.The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the award amount has been deposited before the Execution Court and the claim petitioner has also withdrawn the amount and hence, he has to satisfy with the amount already awarded.7.On the question of quantum, the injured examined himself as P.W.1 and the Senior Civil Surgeon attached to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry, was examined as P.W.2 and the Assistant Professor of the Medical Board attached to Government Medical College, Chennai, is examined as P.W.3. Ex.P4 is the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020discharge summary and Ex.P5 is the wound certificate. Ex.P6 is the Medical Bills and Ex.P7 is another discharge summary so also Ex.P8 & Ex.P9. On behalf of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 – Officer from the RTO Office was examined and Ex.R1 was marked. The staff from the Insurance Company is examined as R.W.2 and Exs.R2 & R3 were marked. The disability certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Medical Board at Chennai Medical College is marked as Ex.C1. As per Ex.C1, P.W.3 / Doctor who is the author of Ex.C1 has stated that based upon the examination and also the neurological evaluation, disability suffered by the claim petitioner is fixed at 90%. Based upon the age mentioned in Exs.P7 & P8, the age of the injured was fixed as 47 years and multiplier is '13' is adopted as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (6) STC (21), Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation. 8.Having satisfied with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, [Rajkumar Vs. Ajaykumar and Another], the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier method. The notional income of the claim petitioner is fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020and the compensation for pecuniary loss was assessed at Rs.11,23,200/- and the same is as follows:-Rs.8,000/- X 90/100 X 12 X 13 = Rs.11,23,200/-9.With regard to other heads, the Tribunal has awarded the following amounts:-1/tUkhd ,Hg;g[ (Loss of earning capacity)- Rs.11,23,200/-2/typ kw;Wk; ntjidf;F (Pain & Sufferings)- Rs.2,50,000/-3/trjp ,Hg;gpw;F (Loss of amenities)- Rs.1,50,000/-4/mjpu;r;rp kw;Wk; kdntjidf;F (Shock & Mental agony)- Rs.1,00,000/-5/Cl;lr;rj;J kw;Wk; bghUs; ,Hg;gpw;F (Damages and Extra Nourishment)- Rs.75,000/-6/kUj;Jtkidapy; cld; ,Ug;nghu; bryt[[ (Attender charges)- Rs.2,50,000/-7/kUj;Jt brytpw;F (Medical bills)- Rs.10,054/-8/nghf;Ftuj;J brytpw;F (Transport to hospital)- Rs.50,000/-10.After perusing the award, especially the amount awarded under pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, mental agony and attendant charges, this Court finds that though the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020Rs.20,08,254/-, the above said heads of the amount is exorbitant. However, the learned counsel would contend that the notional income may be reduced as the same is on the higher side. On considering the entirety of the circumstances and excessive amount have already been awarded under clause 2, 3, 4 & 7, this Court is of the considered view that on entirety, the amount of Rs.20,08,254/- itself is on the higher side and hence, in the absence of any appeal from the Insurance Company, I find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is already on the excessive side and hence, I am not inclined to grant any further amount to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.11.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs.20,08,254/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the appellant/claimant, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.386 of 2018 on the file of the Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / the Special Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai, at the first instance 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020and then recover the same from the 1st respondent – owner of the lorry. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.16.04.2024 krkIndex: Yes / NoInternet: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NoTo1.The Special Sub Judge, Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai.2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J. krkC.M.A.No.1811 of 202016.04.20248/8

C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASReserved on:22.03.2024Pronounced on: 16.04.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020andC.M.P.No.8847 of 2020Rajendiran.. AppellantVs.1.Manivasagam2.Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hub 3rd Party Claims, Vijayalakshmi Complex First Floor, No.32/13, Phase No.2, Sathuvachari, Vellore – 632 009. .. RespondentsPrayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the compensation awarded in judgment and decree dated 10.01.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.386 of 2018 on the file of the Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / the Special Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai, by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020For Appellant: Mr.S.Panneer SelvamFor R1: No appearanceFor R2: Mr.D.BhaskaranJ U D G M E N TThe claim petitioner is the appellant herein seeking enhancement of the award granted in M.C.O.P.No.386 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the litigants status before the Trial Court.2.The manner of the accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending lorry was not in dispute and the findings rendered by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.3.Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that the injured claimant has travelled as an unauthorized passenger and hence the policy is not covered. However, based upon the admission made by R.W.2 (officer of the Insurance Company), the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the policy coverage is exceeded in respect of the coolie 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020and accordingly held that the Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with the owner of the lorry and ordered for compensation.4.As against the said finding, the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal.5.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.6.The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the award amount has been deposited before the Execution Court and the claim petitioner has also withdrawn the amount and hence, he has to satisfy with the amount already awarded.7.On the question of quantum, the injured examined himself as P.W.1 and the Senior Civil Surgeon attached to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry, was examined as P.W.2 and the Assistant Professor of the Medical Board attached to Government Medical College, Chennai, is examined as P.W.3. Ex.P4 is the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020discharge summary and Ex.P5 is the wound certificate. Ex.P6 is the Medical Bills and Ex.P7 is another discharge summary so also Ex.P8 & Ex.P9. On behalf of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 – Officer from the RTO Office was examined and Ex.R1 was marked. The staff from the Insurance Company is examined as R.W.2 and Exs.R2 & R3 were marked. The disability certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Medical Board at Chennai Medical College is marked as Ex.C1. As per Ex.C1, P.W.3 / Doctor who is the author of Ex.C1 has stated that based upon the examination and also the neurological evaluation, disability suffered by the claim petitioner is fixed at 90%. Based upon the age mentioned in Exs.P7 & P8, the age of the injured was fixed as 47 years and multiplier is '13' is adopted as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (6) STC (21), Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation. 8.Having satisfied with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, [Rajkumar Vs. Ajaykumar and Another], the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier method. The notional income of the claim petitioner is fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020and the compensation for pecuniary loss was assessed at Rs.11,23,200/- and the same is as follows:-Rs.8,000/- X 90/100 X 12 X 13 = Rs.11,23,200/-9.With regard to other heads, the Tribunal has awarded the following amounts:-1/tUkhd ,Hg;g[ (Loss of earning capacity)- Rs.11,23,200/-2/typ kw;Wk; ntjidf;F (Pain & Sufferings)- Rs.2,50,000/-3/trjp ,Hg;gpw;F (Loss of amenities)- Rs.1,50,000/-4/mjpu;r;rp kw;Wk; kdntjidf;F (Shock & Mental agony)- Rs.1,00,000/-5/Cl;lr;rj;J kw;Wk; bghUs; ,Hg;gpw;F (Damages and Extra Nourishment)- Rs.75,000/-6/kUj;Jtkidapy; cld; ,Ug;nghu; bryt[[ (Attender charges)- Rs.2,50,000/-7/kUj;Jt brytpw;F (Medical bills)- Rs.10,054/-8/nghf;Ftuj;J brytpw;F (Transport to hospital)- Rs.50,000/-10.After perusing the award, especially the amount awarded under pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, mental agony and attendant charges, this Court finds that though the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020Rs.20,08,254/-, the above said heads of the amount is exorbitant. However, the learned counsel would contend that the notional income may be reduced as the same is on the higher side. On considering the entirety of the circumstances and excessive amount have already been awarded under clause 2, 3, 4 & 7, this Court is of the considered view that on entirety, the amount of Rs.20,08,254/- itself is on the higher side and hence, in the absence of any appeal from the Insurance Company, I find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is already on the excessive side and hence, I am not inclined to grant any further amount to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.11.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs.20,08,254/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the appellant/claimant, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.386 of 2018 on the file of the Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / the Special Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai, at the first instance 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020and then recover the same from the 1st respondent – owner of the lorry. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.16.04.2024 krkIndex: Yes / NoInternet: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NoTo1.The Special Sub Judge, Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai.2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1811 of 2020RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J. krkC.M.A.No.1811 of 202016.04.20248/8