SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Historical order THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJICMA(MD) No.276 of 2020 andCMP(MD) No.3729 of 2020Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

by ·

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on:18.12.2023 : Pronounced on:29.04.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CMA(MD) No.276 of 2020 and
CMP(MD) No.3729 of 2020
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai Division V) Limited,
Through its Managing Director,
Having office at Madurai Road
Virudhunagar
Virudhunagar District. … Appellant
Vs.
N.Thinagar … Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and award passed in
M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2014 dated 21.08.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, learned Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar.
For Appellant : M/s.K.Sudaliayandi
For Respondent : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
J U D G M E N T RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
The Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.

  1. The appellant-Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award granted in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2014, both on negligence and quantum.
  2. The respondent herein, the injured in the road transport accident on 10.12.2012 has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2014 for the loss of two legs in the road transport accident involving the appellant-Transport Corporation Bus.
  3. In the counter statement filed by the appellant-Transport Corporation before the Tribunal, it is contended that on the date of the accident, the claimant-petitioner does not possess a valid driving license for a two wheeler and only due to the rash and negligence driving on the part of the claimant, the accident has taken place.
  4. During the trial, the claimant – petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked as Exs.P1 to P33 and also examined Dr.R.Jegannathan, who issued the wound certificate marked as Ex.P7.
    Mr.Johns Salamon was examined as P.W.3, and Mr.Kirthivasan Saminthan was examined as P.W.4. On behalf of the respondent, two witnesses were examined, and Ex.R1 was marked.
  5. Upon consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has concluded that the accident took place due to the rash driving and negligence of the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus. On the date of the accident, the claim petitioner, who was employed in the UAE as a Mechanical Engineer, came to India for vacation, after leaving his erstwhile company. After receiving the appointment from the new company, however, in the interregnum period, that is before he could join the new Company, the accident has taken place in India. In the accident, the left limb upto the middle thigh and the right limb below the knee were amputated and removed. Consequently a compensation of Rs.3,43,02,000/- was awarded, leading to the appeal.
  6. The learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation contended that the injured victim does not possess a valid driving license. Hence, his negligence has contributed to the accident. The salary earned by the injured claimant in a foreign soil cannot be simply adopted for the purpose of the commutation.
    Therefore, the counsel seeks to modify the award.
  7. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has madesubmissions in support of the award.
  8. On the point of deduction of 1/3rd amount in normal circumstances towards personal expenses, the case has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma
    and Others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another in Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008, duly approved by the Constitutional Bench. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi, the deduction of personal expenses should have been 1/3rd or 1/4th as stated therein and it is ½ when the deceased is a bachelor. In Sarla Varma Case, it is categorically held that actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax and further held that:-
    i) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 % of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded the necessary method of computation. The established income means, income minus tax component ii) For determination of the multiplicant, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the Tribunals and the Courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Varma which we have reproduced hereinbefore iii) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment iv) the age of the deceased should be the
    basis for applying the multiplier
    v) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
  9. The said proposition has been approved by the Constitution
    Bench and hence, in view of the ratio laid down by the Constitution
    Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case, the deduction shall be in ½ or 1/3 or ¼ as per the number of dependants or victim being the bachelor and we have no hesitation to held that the same proposition shall apply to any road transport accident that happens in India dehors employment being in India or in foreign country.
    11.(a) On coming to the point of (a) what is the income tax and (b) whether the salary fixed or salary mentioned in the salary certificate produced by the claim petitioner shall be taken on the face of it or subject to income tax is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case wherein it has been held that actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. The established income means, income minus tax component and therefore, on that score also we are unable to take a different view since the Constitutional Bench already decided the rate of income tax that has to be deducted.
    (b)In this connection, in the decision reported in 2010 ACJ 168
    (SC) in the case of Shyamwati Sharma and Others Vs Karam Singh and Others the Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the percentage of deduction towards income tax and surcharge at 30% having regard to the income and hence, the same may be adopted even in respect of employment in overseas and victim met with an accident in Indian soil.
  10. The next point that we are proposed to address is whetherthe salary fixed or mentioned in salary certificate or letter of appointment produced by the claim petitioner in the foreign country for the foreign employment has to be taken as a notional income to arrive at the compensation.
  11. For the purpose of conversion of money rate, the Hon’ble
    Supreme court in Jiju Kuruvala and Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166, held as follows:-
    “ Whether the exchange rate prevailing on the date of determination of award, or that prevailing on the date of filing of claim petition to be applied.
    Since compensation in instant case was claimed in Indian rupees and not in US dollars, the foreign exchange rate as prevailing on the date of filing of claim petition would be applicable in instant case”
  12. Our attention has been drawn to Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited and others Vs Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others reported in
    2002 ACJ 1441 SC wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that the compensation to the dependants of Indian origin in America killed in road accident in India and there was no occasion for the Hon’ble Apex Court to consider the grant of compensation for future prospects wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not allowed any deduction as pressed by the Insurance Company on the account of receipts of Insurance Policy and social security benefit received by the claimants.
  13. In the decision in CMA.No.2623 of 2009 in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs S.Malarvizhi and others dated 06.06.2013, the Division Bench of this Court has considered various points interalia as to whether the multiplier has to be reduced as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patricia Jean Mahajan case. However, we have already dealt with the same and in view of the Constitution Bench, in the above said decision in paragraph No.6 no longer holds the field. However, for the purpose of computation of compensation, an income has to be arrived at as that of the injured. In a case when the employment is in foreign state, it remains to be stated as follows:-
    “Looking to the Indian economy, fiscal and financial situation, the amount is certainly a fabulous amount though in the background of American conditions it may not be so. It was further held that , where there is so much of disparity in the economic conditions and affluence of the two places viz., the place to which the victim belongs and the place at which the compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair compensation.
    Looking by the Indian standards they may not be much too overcompensated and similarly not very much under compensated as well, in the background of the country where most of the dependent beneficiaries reside”
  14. The insurance company contended that financial and economical condition in the Indian context are entirely different from the foreign countries like Malaysia and Singapore. While so, the salary earned in foreign countries cannot be taken as a basis for awarding the compensation and a balance has to be struck and relied upon the Patricia Jean Mahajan case. In the said context, the Division Bench of this Court in Malavizhi’s case has held that instead of taking the salary as Singapore Dollars 3000, the Division Bench has fixed a monthly salary at $ dollars 2000 as salary earned by the deceased at Singapore, taking note of a high percentage of deduction towards personal expenses in foreign countries.
  15. In United India Insurance Company Lt. Vs S.Muniandi
    Santha in C.M.A.No.670 of 2009, the similar question was considered by the Division Bench as to the manner with which the income of the deceased, who worked in Singapore died in the Indian road condition was considered. The deceased lived in Singapore where the cost of living is very high.The deceased earned in a foreign country in a foreign currency and in view of the disparity in economical situation in Singapore and in India, factors have been discussed and held that high income tax regime and cost of living are said to be the consideration.
    18(a). After hearing the rival submissions and after meticulously following the decisions referred thereto, we come to the conclusion that the relevant aspects such as age of the deceased, income after allowable deduction and in choosing the appropriate multiplier, there cannot be a different yardstick as between in India and a foreigner/non-resident who dies in a road accident or suffered injuries. The principles governing the determination of compensation should be same for the both.
    (b) However, we also take note of the employment, environment prevailing at foreign country that switching over from one employer to another, where pay is more, is so common abroad. Many persons who are employed in foreign continues, will not be idle because without a job, it’s very difficult to thrive abroad. Therefore, the last known income is to be taken as a yardstick for the purpose of computation of pecuniary loss sustained by the family.
    (c) Our attention is also drawn to the decision reported in 2005 3 LW 375 wherein the Hon’ble Justice P.Sathasivam (As His Lordship then was) sitting in the Division Bench has observed while computing the amount of compensation which is extracted hereunder:-
    “Looking to the Indian economy, fiscal and financial situation, the amount is certainly a fabulous amount though in the background of American conditions it may not be so. Therefore, where there is so much of disparity in the economic conditions an affluence of the two places viz., the place to which the victim belongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne. Looking by the Indian standards they may not be much too overcompensated and similarly not very much under compensated as well, in the background of the country where most of the dependent beneficiaries reside”
    “In the light of the discussion and conclusion of the Supreme Court, in the above referred case, and in view of the fact that the Indian economy, fiscal and financial situation and the background of UK conditions, it cannot be claimed that the standard of living and other expenses are similar in both the places. Undoubtedly, there is much of disparity in the economic conditions and affluent of two places that it is the place to which the victim belongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid. If we consider these aspects and of the fact that in foreign country, particularly UK the extent for own maintenance and for education of their children etc., compared to our country is on the higher side and by applying principles laid down in the Supreme Court’s case, we hold that the Tribunal is fully justified in scaling down
    50 per cent of her earnings. (emphasis supplied)
  16. Thus, in respect of employment in UK, the Division Bench has taken note of the various judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that there should be a scaling down by 50 per cent of the earnings of the deceased, we clarify the position, for the purpose of income tax, 30 percent is already deducted as we discussed in the preceding paragraphs and therefore, considering the nature of the employment in the country where the foreign employment is taken note of, another deduction of 10 to 15 per cent can be reasonable and accordingly, we hold that to arrive at the salary or the monthly income in addition to 30 per cent of the tax, 10 to 15 per cent may be deducted, considering the economical disparity between two countries and the affluent of two places, i.e., the place to which the victim belongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid and we answer the point accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to deduct another 10%.
  17. In C.M.A.No.1034 of 2021, speaking for the Division bench of this Court, one of us (Hon’ble Justice P.B.Balaji), authored a judgment directing the fixation of notional income, The said Sathya’s case has to considered. Where there was no seal or signature authenticating the genuineness of the said document and scaling down of salary was applied and a notional income of 50,000/- was fixed. There is no hard and fast rule for fixing the percentage of scale down of salary and the same is variable, depending upon the country of employment. We hereby clarify the position in the above stated terms.
  18. On the point of Diplomatic and Consular (Oaths and Fees ) Act, 1948, we have gone through the said Act. As per the Section 3(2) of the said Act, if any document has been authenticated by the Diplomatic and Consular officer, such document shall be admitted in evidence without proof of seal of bearing the Officer or the character of that person and hence, we find that under the above said Act, if any document, with reference to the matter in the instant case, any salary certificate which has been attested by the Consular office, the same can be admitted in evidence without calling upon the claimant to produce the certificate from the concerned office or a person who had issued a salary certificate or pay certificate and such certificate which has the seal of the Consular office shall be admitted in evidence, without any further proof as to its admission. The same is akin to the provision contained under Section 273 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the position shall stand clarified to that limited extent.
  19. Coming to the contention of requirement of necessary endorsement by the Consular Office of India in the abroad soil, after we perused the said Act, Section 3(1 ) is extracted below:-
    3.Powers as to Oaths and Notarial Acts Abroad-
    (2) Any document purporting to have affixed, impressed or subscribed thereon or thereto the seal and signature of any person authorised by this Act to administer an oath in testimony of any oath, affidavit or act, being administered, taken or done by or before him, shall be admitted in evidence without proof of the seal or signature being the seal or signature of that person, or of the official character of that person. (emphasis supplied)
    23.Hence, a perusal of the said provision in unequivocal terms leads to the conclusion that any certificate, in the instant case the salary certificate, appointment letter or any other certificate issued by the employer of the deceased/victim in the accident in the foreign employment in the foreign country by the foreign employer which is duly attested by the Consular of India, can be accepted in evidence without any person associated with the document being examined as a witness and it does not say about the converse.
  20. Thus, in respect of the document that has been authenticated under the said Oaths and Fees Act, the said salary certificate or employment certificate or any certificate issued by the alleged employer can be marked without the author being present as witness in the Courts of India and not converse, and in 2010 (2) TNMAC 58 SC (Rajkumar Vs.Ajaykumar) and Edapriya’s case for adoption of multiplier method and addition future profits even for injury cases.
  21. Even with respect to the injury claim by the person who was employed on foreign soil, but met with an accident in road transport in India, the principal elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar’s case is applicable. The Court has to determine the functional disability, if any, and then assess the compensation by considering future prospects as stated in Edapriya’s case.
  22. In short, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Rajkumar’s case as well as Edapriya’s case are applicable for the claim made by the injured who was employed in foreign country, met with an accident and suffered injury in Indian soil.
  23. On the point of rash and negligence, the Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P1 F.I.R Ex.P2 Motor Vehicle report for motor cycle and Ex.P3 MVI report for the bus and also Ex.P4 rough sketch, Ex.P5 observation Mahazar and Ex.P6 final report.
  24. On a combined reading of the oral evidence of P.W.1, coupled with Exs.P1 to P6, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident was taken place due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the transport corporation bus.
  25. Our attention is drawn to the evidence of R.W.1 of D.Thangavel, the driver of the bus. We have given our anxious consideration to the answer elicited in the cross examination of R.W.1, the driver of the bus, wherein R.W.1 stated that upon seeing the injured person on the two wheeler, he suddenly applied the breaks. Since he did not apply the brake on time, the two wheeler driven by the injured person hit (dashed) the bus; however, without any major injuries. This Court has considered the aforementioned part of the chief-examination of R.W.1 and finds that if the driver R.W.1 had attended to the victim immediately after the accident, he could have provided more information about the nature of the grievous injury sustained by the claim petitioner.
  26. It is the specific case of the injured P.W.1 coupled with medical records that after the accident, the injured was dragged along with his motorcycle for nearly about 15 feet distance towards Vilaku Road. Thereafter, the bus altered its direction. The bus then reversed. During the forward motion, it ran over the right leg of the injured. While moving in reverse, the bus’s wheel rolled over the left leg. The claimant was caught under the front wheel of the bus, which ran over the left leg of the claim-petitioner. The right leg of the petitioner was dragged for some distance. The claim petitioner’s both leg were subsequently amputated due to crash injuries. Therefore, we find that R.W.1 is not telling the truth and is providing a statement to protect himself in the departmental proceedings. This leads us to conclude that all the evidence presented by R.W.1 is self serving and taking into account testimony of P.W.1, the injured who is also a witness to the inident, along with the rough sketch EX.P4, it is evident that R.W.1 did not describe how the accident occurred whether the two wheeler’s rider was attempting to overtake the bus, or if there was a head on collision with the bus.
  27. On the contrary, P.W.1 has categorically stated that both vehicles were moving in the same direction. It is the duty of the transport corporation bus driver, while entering from the main road to the branch road, to slow down the vehicle, sound the horn, leave space for other vehicles, and observe traffic rules. In this case, it appears that the driver forgot to follow the traffic rules and drove the vehicle recklessly and negligently. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the evidence of P.W.1 is clear and cogent, duly corroborated by the documentary evidence viz., Exs.P1 to P6 and for the reasons recorded supra, we have no hesitation to reject the evidence of R.W.1 which is self-serving. Accordingly, we confirm the finding rendered by the Tribunal as to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.
  28. The learned counsel for the appellant-transport corporation insisted that since the injured does not have a license, some contributory negligence has to be fixed upon him. This Court has considered the said submission in all seriousness. However, based on the evidence available on record as discussed herein, we find that the driver of the vehicle, a transport corporation bus, drove in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler proceeding in front of him and dragged the injured for 15 feet. Subsequently, in the process, he ran over the front wheel and the leg of the injured. He then reverse and ran over the left leg. Therefore, we do not find any negligence on the part of the injured, even though it is alleged that he did not possess a driving license.
  29. At this juncture, we would like to further state that when a claimant does not have a license to drive the two wheeler, it does not automatically give license to kill the person on the road by negligence. Accordingly, the entire negligence is fixed upon the driver of the appellant – transport corporation.
  30. On the quantum of compensation, the points summarized in the above paragraphs are taken into consideration.
  31. The age of the injured at the time of the accident is ’39’. Since the date of birth is 26.07.1974. The date of the accident is
    10.12.2012. As per Ex.P8, the injured has completed Mechanical Engineering course with first class.
  32. On perusal of Ex.P13 appointment letter issued by ALTHANAA TRADING CO (LLC), Dubai, UAE., dated 05.11.2012, P.W.1 Thinagar got employment in the above said company at monthly salary of AED 9000 (1 AED is 14.8372 INR rounded of 15 INR) which is equivalent to Rs.1,35,000/- per month and the petitioner was about to join in the said job by 31.12.2012. Ex.P13 is the employment offer letter clearly reveals that the victim was interviewed by the said company before 05th November 2012 and he was requested to join before 31st December 2012.
  33. As per the above said employment letter, he was offered Rs.1,35,000/- per month. To prove the income of the petitioner immediately after the accident, the petitioner has marked 26 documents during his evidence and Ex.P10 is the salary certificate of the petitioner issued by AL HAMAD CONTRACING COMPANY, UAE in the year 2011 i.e., before the accident.
  34. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of at Rs.1,50,000/-. Considering that the claimant was also earning income from other sources and such income was never deprived, the salary alone needs to be factored. Hence we deem it fit to disturb the said findings arrived at by the Tribunal fixing the total monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,50,000/- and the monthly income of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.1,35,000/- per merisem taking into the consideration, the money exchange rate on the date of the accident.
  35. On an combined reading of Ex.P10 – salary certificate
    Ex.P12 – copy of the permit order (visa), Ex.P13 letter from the AL THANAA Trading Co., UAE., and Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 old passport and new passport, we are of the considered view that the claim petitioner was working in UAE after quitting his job in the old company, he attended the interview and got the appointment letter as per Ex.P13 marked through Ex.P.W.3- the employer of the company and before joining the new company, he came down to India on vacation and in the interregnum period, he met with an accident and hence, we are of the considered view that the salary has reflected in Ex.P13 may be adopted as spoken to by P.W.3 and the rate of conversion is the money exchange rate on the date of the accident.
  36. On a perusal of the discharge summary, Ex.P13 issued by the Apollo Hospital, the claim petitioner was given treatment and surgery was performed on his left leg upto the middle thigh and on his right leg, below knee were amputated and removed.
  37. The Tamil Nadu Disability Welfare Board issued Ex.P22 Identity Card fixing the permanent disability at 99%. Since the claim petitioner was working as a Mechanical Engineer, he cannot do and earn as he used to before the accident. Hence, it has resulted in a loss of earning capacity, and he cannot perform regular work.
    Consequently, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident has left the claim petitioner with functional disability, fixed at 100%. The claim petitioner has suffered functional disability as stated in the Rajkumar’s case and is also entitled to future prospectus as per the
    Edapriya’s case, and accordingly we fix the functional disabilities at
    90%
  38. Accordingly, the pecuniary loss is re-determined. As the petitioner is aged about 39 years, the multiplier of 15 following Sarla Verma’s case and the salary is per merisem is Rs.1,35,000/-.
  39. In view of the discussion in preceding paragraphs, we are fixing 30% as tax of the segment and 10% for the economical disparity and intoto 40% and hence, the notional income for the purpose of determination of compensation is arrived as under:Monthly Income of the deceased is Rs.1,35,000/-
    1 AED is 14.8372 INR (rounded off to 15 INR) (-) 40%=Rs.81,000/-
    ( 81,000/- X 12 X15 X 90/100 =1,31,22,000/-)
  40. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards loss of income. However, considering the period of treatment, monthly income of the claimant being arrived at Rs.1,35,000/- per month, the compensation awarded under the heard of loss of earning would be Rs.16,20,000/- (Rs.1,35,000/- X 12 = Rs.16,20,000/-). Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and
    Rs.3,00,000/- towards Future Medical Expenses and towards
    Transportation and the same are hereby reduced to Rs.4,00,000/- and
    Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-,
    Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- are hereby reduced to Rs.3,00,000/5,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- under the head Loss of amenities, Pain and sufferings and Loss of Happiness in Matrimonial Life. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.2,000/-, Rs.9,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards Extra Nourishment, Damage to Clothes, Medical Expenses, Atttendant charges and Future Attendant charges are hereby confirmed. The award of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony is set aside and no separate compensation can be awarded under such a head when already compensation is awarded for pain and sufferings and loss of happiness in matrimonial life.
    Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of quantum is modified and reduced from Rs.3,43,02,000/- to Rs.1,76,44,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, break-up as follows –
    Sl.
    No. Particulars Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court
  41. Loss of earning Rs. 18,00,000/- Rs. 16,20,000/-
  42. Loss of
    Transportation Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-
  43. Extra Nourishment Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-
  44. Damage to Clothes Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 2,000/-
  45. Medical Expenses Rs. 9,00,000/- Rs. 9,00,000/-
  46. Future Medical Expenses Rs. 20,00,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/-
  47. Attendant Charges Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
  48. Future Attendant charges Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
  49. Mental Agonty Rs. 3,00,000/- —–
  50. Loss of Amenities Rs. 6,00,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/-
  51. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 6,00,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/-
  52. Loss of Happiness in Matrimonial Life Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/-
  53. Permanent Disability
    & Future Loss of Earning Power Rs 2,70,00,000/- Rs. 1,31,22,000/-
  54. Total Rs.3,43,02,000/- Rs.1,76,44,000/-
  55. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.3,43,02,000/- to Rs.1,76,44,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment.
  56. In the result,
    (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
    (ii) the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the reduced award amount before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount, if any already deposited.
    (iii) on such deposit being made, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw the 50% of the award amount with accrued interest and costs, on the basis of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, less the award amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.
    (iv) No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed.
    (T.K.R.,J.) (P.B.B.,J.)
    29.04.2024
    NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No
    nvi
    To
    1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
    The Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar.
    2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 
    RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN ,J.
    AND
    P.B.BALAJI, J. nvi
    Pre-delivery Judgment in CMP(MD) No.3729 of 2020
    CMA(MD) No.276 of 2020 and
    29.04.2024

[09/05, 15:48] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1788513706072322323?t=12eGp-uHjtCrvPz5s1oprg&s=08
[09/05, 15:48] sekarreporter1: வெளிநாட்டில் டிரைவராகப் பணியில் சேர்ந்தவர் இந்தியாவில் வாகனம் ஓட்டும் பொழுது பலியானது காயம் ஏற்பட்ட பிறகு எந்த சட்டத்தைப் பின்பற்றி இழப்பீடு பெறுவது என்பது பற்றி நீதிபதிகள் டிக்கார அம்மன் பி பி பாலாஜி அற்புதமான ஒரு விதிமுறைகளை வகுத்து தீர்ப்பளித்து உள்ளார்கள்
[09/05, 15:48] sekarreporter1: 👍

You may also like...