CMA/1453/2023 of THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs LOGANATHAN on 22 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Mala J.)

The Insurance Company has filed the above Appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, by its judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022, made in MCOP.No.390/2018.

The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

The summary of facts are as follows:- On 11.03.2017, at about 6.00 p.m., while the 1st respondent was riding pillion in a motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-28-BB-5665, and nearing the Mariamman Temple Split Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the two- wheeler, the two-wheeler hit upon a road side stone, resulting in the accident. In the impact of the accident, the pillion-rider, the 1st respondent, sustained grievous injuries. The 1st respondent, at the time of the accident, was aged 29 years and as a Manager in Sri Velavan Finance and Sri Senthur Alagar Finance and also as a partner, was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The 1st respondent therefore filed the claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as compensation along with 12% interest per annum.

CMA No. 1453 of 2023

The 2nd respondent, the owner-cum-rider of the two-wheeler, remained exparte.

The appellant in its counter, denied the manner of accident, negligence, liability and the quantum of compensation claimed by the 1st respondent.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined five witnesses and marked 32 documents. On the side of the appellant, one Dinesh was examined and the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. The Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Court document under Ex.C1.

The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, framed the necessary issues. The Claims Tribunal found that the negligence of the two-wheeler rider, resulted in the accident and that the appellant was liable to indemnify the insured since there was a valid, subsisting policy for the two-wheeler at the time of the accident. The Claims Tribunal, based on Ex.P4-Wound Certificate, Exs.P8 and P9, the Discharge Summaries, held that the 1st respondent had suffered grievous injuries in the road accident. On the basis of the evidence of PW5 and the Disability Certificate-Ex.P30, the Claims Tribunal found that the 1st respondent had suffered 65% permanent disability, and relying on Ex.C1 and considering that the 1st respondent had a total loss of vision in the left eye, and was not able to speak properly, fixed the functional disability at 64%. The Claims Tribunal

CMA No. 1453 of 2023

deemed it fit to adopt the multiplier method and awarded a total compensation of Rs.32,73,030/- with 7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.

We have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

The only point agitated by the appellant in the appeal was that the income of the 1st respondent assessed by the Claims Tribunal was erroneous. The records show that PW2 and PW4 were examined to prove the income of the 1st respondent. PW2 testified that the 1st respondent was working as a Manager in a Finance Company and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month towards salary and transport. PW4 deposed that the 1st respondent worked as a Manager in his Finance Company, namely, Sri Velavan Finance. Pws.2 and 4 marked Exs.16 to 21 and 22 to 28, in support of the income of the 1st respondent. The Claims Tribunal relying on Exs.P17 and P22, found that the 1st respondent was one of the partners in Sri Senthur Alagar Finance and Sri Velavan Finance. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the income tax returns for the year 2013-14, fixed the annual income of the 1st respondent, at Rs.2,03,064/-. On the basis of Ex.C1 the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, and the evidence of PW5, the Neuro Foundation Doctor, who deposed that the 1st respondent had suffered total loss of vision in the left eye, was not able to

CMA No. 1453 of 2023

speak properly and considering that the 1st respondent was unable to undertake his day-to-day activities without the help of an assistant, the Claims Tribunal assessed the functional disability at 64%. By adopting the multiplier method and taking 64% as functional disability, the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.22,09,336/- towards functional disability. After following the established legal principles, the Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.32,73,030/-.

The short point is whether the income of the 1st respondent assessed by the Claims Tribunal is correct and in consonance with the evidence on record.

The Claims Tribunal, in our view, rightly rejected the income tax returns for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 and relied on the income tax returns for the year 2013-14, to assess the annual income of the 1st respondent at Rs.2,03,064/-. The Claims Tribunal, in the absence of any supporting evidence, held that the income tax returns for the Assessment Years 2015-16, and 2016-17, may have been inflated and hence, rejected the same. We find absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the assessment of the annual income of the 1st respondent, by the Claims Tribunal. We have perused the income tax returns filed as Ex.P11 for the AY 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17. We find that the returns for the AY 2015-16 and

CMA No. 1453 of 2023

2016-17, appear to be inflated. We therefore, find no infirmity in the Claims Tribunal relying on the income tax returns for the AY 2013-14 for assessing the income of the 1st respondent.

Considering the nature of injuries as referred to in Ex.C1, we are of the view that the assessment of loss towards functional disability, by adopting the multiplier method, is fair and reasonable. Even the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the other heads, we find it to be fair and reasonable and in conformity with the settled legal principles.

We therefore find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal.

In view of the above discussions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal, dated 25.11.2022 passed in M.C.O.P. 390 of 2018, is confirmed.

The appellant is directed to deposit the Award amount of Rs.32,73,030/- [Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Thirty only] along with the interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. The 1st respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the Award amount with accrued interest, by filing

CMA No. 1453 of 2023

appropriate application before the Claims Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To

1. The Presiding Officer, Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases Registered undergoneSC/ST [POA] Act, Namakkal.

2. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Chennai.

3. The Divisional Manager RELIANCE GENERAL INSURNACE COMPANY LTD Omalur Road, Sri Lakshmi Complex, 1st Floor, Bharathi Street, Swarnauri, Salem - 636004.

CMA No. 1453 of 2023

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 1453 of 2023 AND CMP NO. 14848 OF 2023 22-09-2026