Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4044 (MAD)

National Insurance v. A. Dhansekaran (died)

2013-11-28

S.VIMALA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. Dhanasekaran, aged 48 years, engaged in chicken business and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month, met with an accident on 15.09.2002. In respect of the injuries sustained, he claimed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- under the following break-up details: a) Medical expenses was claimed at Rs.1,90,729.32 as per Ex.P-4. But, certain discrepancies were noted and the medical expenses was allowed at Rs.1,50,000/-, having regard to the fact that he was taking treatment as in-patient for a period of three months. b) The loss of earning capacity was calculated in respect of 40% disability at Rs.1,20,000/-. c) For pain and sufferings, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was granted. Thus, totally, Rs.2,90,000/- has been awarded as compensation. 3. Challenging the same, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that when the Tribunal has found out discrepancies in the medical certificate, which is filed as Ex.P-4, award of compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- on several grounds is unjustified. 5. Even though the medical expenses was claimed at Rs.1,90,729.32, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. This award amount is under challenge. The discrepancy has been already noted down by the Tribunal and appropriate amount has been arrived at. It is not pointed out how the award on medical expenses is incorrect. Under such circumstances, this Court do not think it appropriate to interfere with the award granted towards medical expenses. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not a fit case for applying the multiplier method of quantification. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the details of injuries suffered, period of treatment and the nature of disablement. 7. Perusal of Ex.A-2, accident register copy, would go to show that the claimant has suffered fracture of cervical bone 1, 2, 3 and also suffered compound fracture of the fingers 2, 3, 4 in the right hand. Apart from the head injury, he has also suffered fracture of both bones in the leg. The doctor has fixed the percentage of disability in respect of different parts of the body separately. Apart from the head injury, he has also suffered fracture of both bones in the leg. The doctor has fixed the percentage of disability in respect of different parts of the body separately. However, the Tribunal has taken the percentage of disability at 40%, with reference to the whole of the body. 8. It is the contention of the insurance company that when the percentage of disability is only 40%, the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method for quantification of compensation. This contention is well founded. But the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that compensation, which ought to have been awarded in respect of transport expenses, loss of enjoyment of amenities, extra nourishment have not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal and the amount should be awarded on those heads also. 9. Considering the submissions made on both sides, compensation for permanent disability is awarded at Rs.80,000/-. Awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards transport expenses and extra nourishment;, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of enjoyment of amenities, the claim is answered. The award amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses is confirmed. Thus, totally a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- is awarded as compensation. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, reducing the award amount from Rs.2,90,000/- to Rs.2,70,000/-. It is represented that the entire amount of compensation as ordered by the Tribunal has already been deposited by the insurance company. In view of the modification in the award, the claimant would be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- along with proportionate interest, less the amount already withdrawn, if any and on such withdrawal, the insurance company would be entitled to withdraw the balance amount. No costs.