BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01/03/2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN C.M.A (MD) No.613 of 2004 National Insurance Company Limited, Tirunelveli. .. Appellant Vs 1.Navaneetha Krishnan 2.Govindan 3.Jaysingh .. Respondents Prayer Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2003 and made in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Judge), Tenkasi. !For Appellant ... Mr.Kumar for Mrs.Uma Ramanathan ^For R - 1 ... Mr.T.Selvakumaran For RR 2 & 3 ... No appearance :JUDGMENT
Challenge is made in this appeal to the award of Rs.7,56,593/- dated
11.08.2003 and made in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Court), Tenkasi.
2.The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal may be summarized briefly as follows:
That on 25.10.1998, at about 08.00 a.m, near Mounasamy Madam in
Courttalam-Shencottah Main Road, the Motor-cycle driven by the first
respondent/claimant was hit by a Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-72-Y-
1839 which was coming from the opposite direction and as a result of which, the
first respondent/claimant along with two pillion riders were thrown out of the
Motor-cycle and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the first
respondent/claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2000 before
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Court), Tenkasi.
3.The respondents 2 and 3 being the driver and the owner of the offending
vehicle had not chosen to contest the claim petition. On the other hand, the
appellant/Insurance Company being the third respondent in the claim petition had
alone contested the claim petition on various grounds.
4.On considering the evidences both oral and documentary, the Claims
Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7,56,593/- towards the compensation for the
injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant.
5.When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company has vehemently objected to the award of the
Tribunal.
6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant
has contended that the award of the Tribunal is reasonable and does not require
any interference of this Court.
7.However, both the learned counsels have submitted that the monthly
income of the first respondent/claimant could be determined at Rs.3,000/- and on
appreciation of the evidences and on considering the permanent disability of the
first respondent/claimant at 65%, the award could be determined. They have also
submitted calculation memo to that effect.
8.On the basis of the calculation memo, the monthly income of the first
respondent/claimant is determined at Rs.3,000/-. Hence, the annual income of the
first respondent/claimant would be Rs.36,000/-. Since, he was aged about 22
years, the multiplier of 15 is adopted. On application of this multiplier
system, the life dependency of the first respondent/claimant would be
Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.36,000 X 15 = Rs.5,40,000/-). The loss of earning capacity at
the ratio of 65% comes to Rs.3,51,000/- (65/100 X Rs.5,40,000 = Rs.3,51,000/-).
9.Having regard to this method of calculation, the award passed by the
Tribunal at Rs.7,56,593/- has been reduced to Rs.3,51,000/- with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award of Rs.7,56,593/-
has been reduced to Rs.3,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The
appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay this amount with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation. The
memo of calculation filed by both parties shall form part of the records. No
costs.
ps
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
First Additional Sub-Court,
Tiruchirappalli.