//
you're reading...
legal issues

how to fix compensation when a leg of driver was amputated = The decision reported in 2011 ACJ 1 (cited supra) has been relied upon both by the insurer as well as the claimant. In the said decision, the Apex Court has laid down that the ascertainment of the effect of permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps and the same has been laid down in paragraph 10, which reads as follows :

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

English: Chennai high court view taken by myse...

Image via Wikipedia

Dated : 04/1/2012

Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice K.MOHAN RAM

and

The Honourable Mr.Justice G.M.AKBAR ALI

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL(NPD)Nos.2597 and 2630 of 2011
and all connected pending MPs
AND MP.NO.5 OF 2011
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rattan Bazaar, Chennai-3.
Appellant in CMA
No.2597/2011 and
R2 in CMA.No.2630
Of 2011
Vs
1.K.Pachiappan
R1 in CMA.No. 2597/2011 and
appellant in CMA.No.
2630/2011

2.M/s.Sanco Trans Limited,
Chennai-1.
R2 in CMA.No.
2597/2011 & R1 in
CMA.No.2630/2011
APPEALS under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 6.4.2011 made in MCOP.No.350 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fifth Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellant in CMA.No.2597 of 2011 & R2 in CMA.No.2630 of 2011 : Mr.S.Arunkumar

For Respondent-1 in CMA.No.2597 of 2011 and appellant in
CMA.No.2630 of 2011 : Mr.M.Swamikannu
R2 in CMA.No.2597/2011 & R1 in CMA.No.2630/2011 : set
Ex parte before the Court below
COMMON JUDGMENT

K.MOHAN RAM,J

Being aggrieved by the award dated 6.4.2011 made in MCOP. No.350 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fifth Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, the insurer, which is the second respondent in the claim petition, has filed CMA.No.2597 of 2011. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant has filed CMA.No.2630 of 2011.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows :
The claimant filed the aforesaid original petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.66 lakhs in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place at 14.30 hours on 24.11.2008. The case of the claimant is that when he was standing near the container lorry at the loading yard of M/s.Sanco Transport Limited, No.592, Ennore Express High Road, Ennore, Chennai-57, the Linde Fort container crane came in a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner unmindful of the person standing near the container lorry and dashed against the claimant, due to which, he had fallen down and the wheel ran over his right leg resulting in amputation of his right leg and other multiple injuries. According to the claimant, the driver of the crane is solely and directly responsible for the accident and as such, the owner of the crane and insurer are liable to pay the compensation. He was a heavy vehicle (container lorry) driver and was earning between Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per month. In view of the amputation of his right leg, he can no longer continue his avocation of driving and he does not know any other avocation.
3. The claim was contested by the insurer alone, as the owner of the crane remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
4. The insurer, in their counter statement, inter alia contended as follows :
The age and occupation of the claimant were not admitted. The various claims made under several heads were not admitted. The place, date, time, alleged narration of the accident, nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment taken and medical expenses have been specifically denied and the claimant was put to strict proof of the same. The negligence attributed to the driver of the crane has been denied and in any case, the insurer pleaded contributory negligence. On the aforesaid pleadings, the insurer contested that it is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and four other witnesses have also been examined. ExP1 to ExP10 have been marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the insurer, one witness has been examined as RW1 and ExR1 has been marked. On a consideration of the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crane bearing Regn.No.L1-10-0820 and in view of the same, the owner of the crane as well as the insurer are liable to pay compensation.
6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of the claimant as well as the doctor  PW4 and other documentary evidence, fixed the disability at 90% and also came to the conclusion that the disability is total and permanent and applied 17 as the multiplier, as the age of the claimant was 25 on the date of accident. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- and accordingly assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs.16,32,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards pain and suffering; Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony; another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards expectancy of life; again a sum of Rs.50,000/- for fixing the artificial limb; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities in life; another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment, transport to hospital, medical expenses, etc.; and Rs.24,000/- towards loss of earnings for a period of three months. Being aggrieved by the award, both the insurer as well as the claimant have filed the above appeals.
7. Heard both.
8. Mr.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the insurer made the following submissions :
The assessment of percentage of disability by the doctor  PW4 is not in accordance with the Schedule to the Workmens Compensation Act, as the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income placing reliance on the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. The percentage of disability for the amputation of leg is only 60% as per the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act and it should not have been fixed at 90%. The claimant is not completely disabled from doing any job and hence, appropriate deduction should have been made from the pecuniary loss arrived at by taking into consideration the fact that the claimant could have earned some amount from some other avocation.
9. Learned counsel for the insurer further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not deducting some amount towards personal expenses/lumpsum payment. The Tribunal is not correct in granting a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.50,000/- towards expectancy of life; Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment, transport to hospital, etc.; and Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses without proper proof; so also the amount of Rs.1 lakh towards pain and suffering and the amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities.
10. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the claimants case that after the accident, he is left with no other alternative employment has been accepted by the Tribunal whereas the claimant is attending to some other job, which was revealed during the course of further investigation done by the insurer. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant himself has issued a letter dated 17.11.2011 to the Investigator  M/s.Vasu Associates that he is fixed with artificial limb and is working as a care taker/security guard in an abandoned petrol pump near Priya Kalyana Mandapam, Mogappair West, Chennai-37 and is being paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- as salary. In such circumstances, the subsequent developments should be taken into consideration and to prove the same, the following documents have been produced namely
(i) photo ID card of the petitioner;
(ii) discharge summary copy/disability certificate;
(iii) letter from petitioner;
(iv) photograph of the petitioner; and
(v) video CD
as additional evidence in the above matter. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that unless the aforesaid additional evidence is received, cause of justice will be affected.
11. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the insurer placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) Sri.Kumaresh Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. {reported in 2011 (2) TN MAC 10 (SC)};
(ii) Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram Vs. R.C.Selvakumar {reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 211 (DB)};
(iii) Pal Raj Vs. Divisional Controller, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation {reported in 2010 ACJ 2859};
(iv) Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (reported in 2010 ACJ 2867);
(v) Govind Yadav Vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited (reported in CDJ 2011 SC 1131); and
(vi) Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (reported in 2011 ACJ 1).
12. Countering the aforesaid submissions, Mr.M.Swamikannu, learned counsel for the claimant made the following submissions :
The Tribunal cannot take the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-, when it is the categorical evidence of the claimant that he was earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month; the Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.24,000/- towards loss of earnings by taking three months income alone taking into consideration of the fact that he lost his income only for three months whereas considering the nature of injuries sustained by him and the nature of treatment taken by him, for more than one year, he was not able to do any work and he is now jobless; the Tribunal is not correct in awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- only towards extra nourishment, transport to hospital, etc., when the claim itself was for Rs.1,50,000/-; the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges, as the claimant cannot attend to his daily needs without any assistance; the compensation awarded towards loss of expectation of life is too low; further, the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities is meagre; the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards mental agony, torture and humiliation at the young age is also too low; and the sum of Rs.1 lakh towards pain and suffering is less.
13. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards continuing permanent disability, when the claimant is entitled to the same as per the decision of the Apex Court dated 12.5.2011 in Civil Appeal Nos.4330 and 4331 of 2011 in the case of B.Kothandapani Vs Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at 9% instead of 7.5% per annum. Learned counsel further submitted that though the claimant, in his chief examination, has stated that because of amputation of his right leg just below the hip, he has lost his job as a driver and he cannot be a driver any more and he cannot attend to any other clerical work, as he studied only upto 9th standard and he also cannot attend to any other work involving physical exertion and he had to depend upon somebody else for his livelihood, no cross examination has been done on these aspects and not even a suggestion has been put to him questioning the aforesaid evidence of PW1.
14. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the doctor  PW4, in his chief examination, has stated that after amputation of his right leg, bone has grown upto 6 cms in a triangular shape and because of that, there has been infection in that portion and the claimant is having pain, due to which, artificial limb cannot be fitted to the claimant. The doctor also deposed that he can no longer drive any vehicle and cannot attend to any job involving physical exertion. But, no suggestion has been put to the doctor  PW4 that the claimant can attend to some other alternate job. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the claimant can attend to alternate job cannot be countenanced.
15. Learned counsel for the claimant further submitted that the claimant has examined his employer as PW5, who deposed that he was paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- and 10% of the transportation charges earned by him and that the claimant was getting not less than Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal is not right in disbelieving his evidence.
16. At the outset, Mr.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence is not being disputed in the appeal filed by the insurer. But, they only challenged the quantum of compensation. Hence, we are not going into the question of negligence in detail. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has considered the entire evidence adduced before it and rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crane and hence, the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
MP.NO.5 OF 2011 :
17. The insurer has filed MP.No.5 of 2011 to receive (i) photo ID card of the petitioner; (ii) discharge summary copy/disability certificate; (iii) letter from petitioner; (iv) photograph of the petitioner; and (v) video CD as additional evidence in the above matter. In the affidavit, it has been stated that since the evidence relates to subsequent developments that have occurred after disposal of the said original petition, the same could not be filed before the Tribunal and the said documents are relevant for fixing the just compensation payable. The said averments in the affidavit were reiterated by the learned counsel for the insurer.
18. But, Mr.M.Swamikannu, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the documents now sought to be produced as additional evidence cannot be received, as the veracity of the same could not be established without adducing oral evidence and subjecting the witnesses to cross examination. As far as the letter said to have been issued by the claimant is concerned, the same is also disputed by the learned counsel. As far as the discharge summary copy/disability certificate is concerned, according to the counsel, the same could not be received without examining the doctor concerned.
19. We have carefully considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
20. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant, without examining the witnesses to prove the letter said to have been issued by the claimant and without examining the doctor said to have issued the discharge summary copy/disability certificate, the same could not be received as additional evidence. The photo ID card and the photograph of the claimant and also the video CD can only depict the nature of amputation undergone by the claimant. As the nature of amputation is already available on record by way of medical evidence, the same will not be of any assistance to assess the disability. Therefore, we do not find any valid reason for entertaining MP.No.5 of 2011 and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
CMA.NOS.2597 AND 2630 OF 2011 :
21. The admitted facts in this case are that the claimant was 25 years old at the time of accident and was having a valid driving licence under ExP3 to drive heavy transport vehicles as well as light motor vehicles. His right leg five inches below the hip has been amputated. He was a driver by profession at the time of accident and because of amputation of his right leg, he can no longer drive any vehicle and the same is corroborated by the evidence of the doctor  PW4. The doctor  PW4 has assessed the permanent disability at 90% due to amputation of leg and other disabilities have been assessed at 10%. But, considering the nature of avocation namely driving, the Tribunal has taken the disability as 100% and applied multiplier method for assessing the pecuniary loss. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the insurer.
22. The main contention of the learned counsel for the insurer is that in spite of amputation of his right leg, the claimant can attend to some other avocation and earn some amount and that has to be deducted from the pecuniary loss assessed. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that the functional disability alone should have been taken into consideration and accordingly, pecuniary loss should have been arrived. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant is now engaged himself as a security guard in a petrol pump and he has admitted the same in his letter given to the Investigator. As we have rejected the petition for adducing additional evidence, the said contention cannot be accepted in the absence of any supporting material evidence.
23. It is pertinent to point out that PW1, in his evidence, has categorically stated that he had studied upto 9th standard and because of amputation of his right leg, he cannot drive any vehicle, he cannot sit and do any clerical job or any other job and he also cannot do any other job involving physical exertion. But, in the cross examination, the same has not been questioned nor even suggested to him that he can attend to some other job. The claimant has categorically stated that he has lost his earning capacity. But, the same has not been questioned in the cross examination.
24. The said evidence of PW1 has been corroborated by the doctor  PW4, who has categorically stated that because of amputation of his right leg, he cannot attend to the avocation of driving and cannot attend to any other avocation. The doctor has categorically stated that 5 inches below the hip, the right leg has been amputated and after amputation, the bone has grown for 6 cms in a triangular shape and because of it, there has been infection and the claimant was having pain and artificial limb cannot be fitted. No cross examination has been done on this aspect also. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of either PW1 or PW4 to disbelieve their evidence. When such evidence is available on record, it is futile on the part of the insurer to contend that the claimant can attend to some other avocation and earn some amount and that such amount should be deducted from the pecuniary loss assessed. The doctor has categorically stated that even the artificial limb cannot be fitted to the claimant, that he has to walk with crutches, that he cannot even sit on his own from a standing position and that he cannot raise from a sitting position without the assistance of another. The doctor further deposed that it will be difficult for him to use Indian toilet and that he cannot spat in the floor. With this permanent disability, it will be difficult for him to attend any family or social functions and in his day to day life, throughout his life, he has to face all these difficulties. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in awarding Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities in life.
25. Learned counsel for the claimant is right in contending that the Tribunal has erred in not granting proper compensation towards permanent disability, as per decision of the Apex Court in B.Kothandapanis case. Even if multiplier method is applied and pecuniary loss is assessed, yet, the claimant is entitled to compensation towards permanent disability.
26. As far as the salary of the claimant is concerned, according to the claimant, he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month from his employer and PW5  his employer also corroborated the same. But, the employer has not produced any account book. The Tribunal has not accepted it and chose to fix the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
27. In the decision reported in 2011 (2) TN MAC 10 (SC) (cited supra), the claimant in that case was aged about 20 years and he was a building centring worker and he suffered amputation of right leg below the knee. The doctor assessed the disability at 70% of right lower limb and at 35% of whole body. The High Court and the Apex Court fixed the disability at 50% and accordingly assessed the pecuniary loss. The said principle is sought to be applied in this case by the learned counsel for the insurer. The facts of this case and the fact of the said case are totally different. There, the amputation was below the right knee and there also, the Apex Court applied the multiplier method and therefore, the said decision will not, in any way, advance the case of the insurer.
28. In the decision reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 211 (DB) (cited supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the case of an injured, who is a marine radio officer and who got his left hand amputated, fixed the disability at 80% and after considering Section 4 and Part II Schedule I of the Workmens Compensation Act, this Court awarded a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs as compensation for the amputation of left hand. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case, as, in this case, the right leg 5 inches below the hip has been amputated and the claimant has lost his job as a driver and he cannot be employed as a driver ever in future.
29. The facts of the case reported in 2010 ACJ 2867 (cited supra) are totally different and therefore, this decision is not applicable to the facts of this case.
30. In the decision reported in 2010 ACJ 2859 (cited supra), the claimant was a driver of a corporation bus and the bus met with the accident during the course of his employment, due to which, he sustained injuries and was no longer able to drive a vehicle and the corporation retained him as a peon on the same salary. In such a factual background, the compensation was assessed. The Apex Court observed that the workman has lost his capacity to function as driver, but with the help of external aids, his mobility has been restored to some extent and he is able to perform the work suitable to his physical condition and that the injuries did not disable the workman permanently from earning his living other than as a driver. The Apex Court further held that the alternate employment given to the claimant on the same salary which he was enjoying before the accident has to be kept in mind while computing loss of earning capacity. In this case, it is not the case of the insurer that the claimant has got alternate employment for the same salary whereas the finding in this case is that the claimant has lost his employment as a driver and is unfit to be a driver in future and it is proved by medical evidence as pointed above that the claimant is not able to attend any other alternate employment. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to this case.
31. In the decision reported in CDJ 2011 SC 1131 (cited supra), the claimant was a helper and he had not produced any evidence to prove the factum of employment and the payment of salary by his employer. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the salary payable to a worker under Minimum Wages Act should be taken into consideration. But, in this case, the claimant was a driver and the Tribunal, having disbelieved the evidence regarding salary of the claimant, has applied minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act.
32. The decision reported in 2011 ACJ 1 (cited supra) has been relied upon both by the insurer as well as the claimant. In the said decision, the Apex Court has laid down that the ascertainment of the effect of permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps and the same has been laid down in paragraph 10, which reads as follows :
The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (sic disability) (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions, and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, if claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100 per cent (or even anything more than 50 per cent), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation.
A reading of the aforesaid extracted passage of the Apex Courts decision shows that the Apex Court itself has pointed out that if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disability may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be 100%, as he is not able to do either driving or carpentry.
33. Therefore, when the claimant in this case has suffered 80% permanent disability due to the amputation of his right leg 5 inches below the hip and he has lost his job as a driver and he cannot drive any vehicle any more, the actual loss of earning capacity is virtually 100%. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that the permanent disability is 100%. In the absence of any acceptable evidence that in spite of amputation of his right leg, the claimant is able to do some other alternate job and earn, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that he can attend to some other alternate employment cannot be countenanced.
34. As far as the fixation of monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- and the adoption of multiplier as 17 by the Tribunal are concerned, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal is right. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the pecuniary loss, which has been assessed at Rs.16,32,000/-.
35. As far as the other conventional damages awarded by the Tribunal are concerned, the sum of Rs.1 lakh awarded towards pain and suffering cannot be said to be on the higher side and hence, the same is confirmed. But, the Tribunal is not justified in granting a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. Therefore, the same is set aside. As far as the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards loss of expectancy is concerned, the same appears to be reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal is not right in awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- for fixing the artificial limb, when it is the evidence of the doctor  PW4 that no artificial limb can be fitted to the claimant and therefore, the award of the said sum of Rs.50,000/- is set aside. Certainly, the claimant will be having several inconveniences in his day to day life and he cannot act independently and hence, the award of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities is confirmed. Further, the award of Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment, transport to hospital, medical expenses and damages is also found to be reasonable and therefore, the same is confirmed. In our considered view, the sum of Rs.24,000/- awarded towards loss of earnings for a period of three months is not correct, since, admittedly, the claimant was taking treatment not only as an inpatient, but also thereafter as an outpatient for a number of months and considering the nature of injuries sustained by him, the loss of earnings should have been awarded for a minimum period of one year and accordingly, for twelve months at Rs.8,000/-, Rs.96,000/- is awarded.
36. Mr.M.Swamikannu, learned counsel for the claimant, placing reliance on the decision in Kothandapanis case, has rightly contended that even though the pecuniary loss has been arrived by applying multiplier method, the claimant is entitled to compensation towards permanent disability. In this case, the permanent disability has been assessed at 80% by the doctor and accordingly, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. Thus, in total, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,88,000/- with interest at 7.5%.
37. For the aforesaid reasons, CMA.NPD.No.2597 of 2011 filed by the insurer is dismissed and CMA.NPD.NO.2630 of 2011 filed by the claimant is partly allowed. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,88,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs eighty eight thousand only) together with interest along with accrued interest and costs awarded by the Court below. It is seen that this Court, at the time of granting interim stay on 12.8.2011, directed the insurer to deposit a sum of Rs.12 lakhs with proportionate interest to the credit of the said original petition and it is represented that a sum of Rs.10 lakhs has also been directed to be withdrawn by the claimant by an order dated 26.9.2011. Therefore, the insurer is directed to deposit the difference in the award amount to the extent indicated above in this judgment together with interest to the credit of the said original petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount lying to the credit of the said original petition. Consequently, all connected pending MPs are closed. No costs.

 

 

 

RS

To

The Registrar,
Small Causes Court
Chennai

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,443 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: