In the High Court of Judicature at Madras CMA No. 4327/19 Appellants National Insurance Company Limited Respondents P. Rammohan & ors. Date of Judgement 11th March 2020 Bench Hon'ble Justice R Subbiah; Justice R Pongippan
Facts of the case
On 19.9.2005 respondent 1 was riding his car and a lorry driven by respondent 2 came from opposite direction dashed respondent 1’s car, due to which he suffered injury and became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital and then he was shifted to 4 different hospitals for the treatment. Respondent 1(claimant) spent Rs 11 lakhs for his medical treatment. 30 years old respondent 1 works in a company and earns Rs 17805 /- p.m. but due to accident he lost his promotion and became disabled. He filed case before the tribunal claiming Rs 36 lakhs. Appeal under 173 Motor Vehicles act 1988 was filed by Insurance Company against order and decree on the file of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Case of respondent raised by appellant denying the negligence on the part of driver of lorry having been insured by appellant’s company. Respondent restricted his claim from 3860000 to 36 lakhs. Tribunal on an oral documentary evidence awarded Rs 8630863 with interest of 7.5% p.a from the date of claim of petition till the date of realization along with proportionate cost.
Arguments Advanced
Arguments from the Appellants
No one( doctor or employer or any other person)and no document other than claimant was not examined in spite of that tribunal fixed the disability of the claimant at 100% and awarded amount towards the ‘future loss of earning capacity’ more over awarded exorbitant and fanciful amount of compensation which resulted to Rs 8630863. He further mentioned that the presiding officer of tribunal used to order such high amount in without proper evidence.
Issue
Whether the amount awarded by the tribunal without proper evidence justifiable?
Decision
It was mentioned that the amount awarded by the tribunal under the head ‘future loss of earning capacity’ shocks the court.
Judgement
The Impugned order was set aside and remit a fresh enquiry by Tribunal. Tribunal was also directed to record the fresh evidence and hear both the parties and pass the order within 6months of receipt the copy of this judgment. This judgement amount no cost.
“The views of the authors are personal“
