Madras HC Cuts Injured Lineman’s Award By ₹25,000, Citing His Continued Employment in Reducing Amenities Compensation

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the accident resulted from the offending vehicle’s rash and negligent driving warranted interference

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed. The Court confirmed the negligence finding and reduced the total compensation from Rs.3,91,832 to Rs.3,66,832, retaining interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

It also directed

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified amount, after credit for sums already deposited, within eight weeks; the claimant may withdraw the amount, and the insurer may withdraw any excess deposit. No order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed

01Facts

The claimant, an Electricity Board Line Inspector, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained when an insured vehicle struck him as he walked along the Thanjavur–Nagapattinam Main Road on 9 July 2017.

¶ 2.1–2.4 · pp. 2–4

The Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded Rs.3,91,832, including Rs.1,00,000 for loss of amenities, with interest at 7.5% per annum. The insurer appealed under Section 173, principally contending that the award was excessive because the claimant had resumed work.

¶ 2.1–2.4, 3.1–3.2, 4.1 · pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the accident resulted from the offending vehicle’s rash and negligent driving warranted interference

¶ 7.1 · p. 5

ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded was excessive, particularly the amount awarded for loss of amenities, given the claimant’s continuing employment

¶ 4.1, 7.3–7.4 · pp. 4–6

03Law Applied

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173

¶ 2.1, 1 · pp. 1–2

The Court assessed negligence by considering the injured claimant’s testimony alongside the FIR and other contemporaneous evidence, and reviewed the compensation in light of the injuries, disability evidence, supporting materials, and the claimant’s continuing employment

¶ 7.1–7.4 · pp. 5–6

No precedent or additional legal test was cited in the judgment

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court treated the claimant as an injured witness and, on considering his evidence with the FIR and contemporaneous materials, found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s negligence finding

¶ 7.1 · p. 5

It noted the evidence of injuries and the disability certificate, which recorded partial permanent disability relating to the fracture and eye vision, and upheld the awards for disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses, nourishment, attendant charges, and transport

¶ 7.2–7.3 · pp. 5–6

However, considering the overall award and the claimant’s continued employment, it found the Rs.1,00,000 award for loss of amenities slightly excessive and reduced it to Rs.75,000

¶ 7.4 · p. 6