C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022
and CMP.Nos.4107 & 4089 of 2022
C.M.A.No.562 of 2022 :
The Branch Manager
Liberty General Insurance Limited
10th Floor, Tower A Peninsula Business Part
Ganapath Rao, Kadam Marg Lower Parel
Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 013. ... Appellant / 3rd Respondent
Vs
1.Nagarathinam
2.Shantha
3.Vanitha
4.Sanjai ... Respondents 1 to 4/ Petitioners
5.Suresh
6.M/s. Eagle Promoters No.119, Ist Floor Chittoor Main Road Katpadi, Vellore District. ... Respondents 5 & 6 / Respondents 1 & 2 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022 C.M.A.No.568 of 2022 :
The Branch Manager Liberty General Insurance Limited 10th Floor, Tower A Peninsula Business Part Ganapath Rao, Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 013. ... Appellant / 3rd Respondent Vs
1.Sujatha
2.Mythili
3.Sangeetha
4.Sathish
5.Rajesh
6.Revathi
7.Chitra ... Respondents 1 to 7/ Petitioners
8.Suresh
9.M/s. Eagle Promoters No.119, Ist Floor Chittoor Main Road Katpadi, Vellore District. ... Respondents 8 & 9 / Respondents 1 & 2 Prayer in CMA.No.562 of 2022 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015, dated 30.09.2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
2/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022 Prayer in CMA.No.568 of 2022 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015, dated 30.09.2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
For Appellant : Mr.E.Rajadurai
(in both CMAs) for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates
For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran [R1 to R4]
(in CMA.562/2022) R5 & R6 - Served [No appearance]
For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran [R1 to R7]
(in CMA.568/2022) R8 & R9 - Served [No appearance]
COMMON JUDGMENT
The second respondent-Insurance Company has challenged the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gudiyatham, Vellore District in M.C.O.P.Nos.224 and 250 of 2015 dated 30.09.2021 on the ground that the Award passed by the Tribunal is rather high.
3/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022
2. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal.
M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015
3. The petitioners are the sons and daughters of one Malliga, who died in road accident on 07.07.2015. The said Malliga was aged 43 years at the time of the accident and was working as a vegetable vendor. It is the case of the petitioners that she was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-
. They had claimed a compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. for the death of their mother. The Insurance Company has questioned the manner of the accident and also stated that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Act as well as the Policy. They had also questioned the age and occupation of the deceased.
M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015
4. The petitioners are the husband and the children of one Nagarathinam, who died in a road accident on 07.07.2015. The petitioners 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022 would contend that the deceased Nagarathinam was eking out her livelihood by earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- and therefore, claimed a compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-.
5. The counter in both the petitions are more or less identical and the third respondent-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal has passed a common Award in the claim petitions, which are the subject matter of the appeals before this Court as well as other connected M.C.O.Ps.
The negligence was squarely placed on the shoulders of the driver of the first respondent's tipper lorry.
6. As regards the quantum of compensation, with reference to the petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.16,37,000/- as compensation. As regards the M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.13,75,000/-. In both the claim petitions, the notional income that had been taken by the Tribunal was a sum of Rs.7,500/-.
5/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022
7. Challenging the said Award as being excessive and the percentage of the deceased has been wrongly brought down in order to increase the multiplier, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeals.
8. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.
9. In the case of the deceased in M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015, the Tribunal has taken the age at 34 years. The deceased could not have been 34 years, as her eldest daughter who is the second petitioner, was aged 19 years in the year 2015 at the time of the death of her mother. If the deceased age is taken to be 34, then the deceased would have been 15 years, when she gave birth to the second petitioner. Therefore, the age of the deceased can be modified to 40 years. Consequently, the multiplier would stand increased to 15. Taking into consideration the fact that the age of the deceased has been taken by the Tribunal at 40 years instead of 34 years, the 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022 loss of dependency has to be re-worked and the same would be a sum of Rs.14,17,500/-.[Rs.7,500 x 12 x 15 x 1/4 x 40%].
10. Similar is the case in M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015, the deceased is stated to be aged 43 years. The first petitioner/the daughter is aged about 28 years, which would imply that her deceased mother should have aged 15 years at the time of her birth. Therefore, the age of the deceased should be 60 and the appropriate multiplier would be 9. That apart, it is seen that the future prospects have been calculated, taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 43. Since the age of the deceased is now fixed at 60 years, the future prospects would work out to 10% as against 25% granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the modified award amount under the head of loss of dependency is Rs.7,12,800/- [Rs.7,500 x 12 x 9 x 1/5 x 10%].
Accordingly, the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reworked as below:
7/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022 C.M.A.No.562 of 2022 (M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015) S.No. Description Amount Amount Award awarded by awarded by confirmed Tribunal this Court or enhanced or granted or reduced 1 Loss of Rs. 15,12,200 Rs.14,17,500 Reduced Dependency 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 Rs. 40,000 Confirmed 2 Loss of Love & Rs. 40,000 Rs. 40,000 Confirmed Affection 3 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Confirmed 4 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Confirmed 5 Transportation Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Confirmed Charges TOTAL Rs. 16,37,000 Rs. 15,42,500 Reduced C.M.A.No.568 of 2022 (M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015) 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022 S.No. Description Amount Amount Award awarded by awarded by confirmed Tribunal this Court or enhanced or granted or reduced 1 Loss of Rs. 12,60,000/- Rs. 7,12,800/- Reduced Dependency 2 Loss of Love & Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 1,40,000/- Enhanced Affection 3 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed 4 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed 5 Transportation Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed Charges TOTAL Rs. 13,75,000/- Rs. 8,97,800/- Reduced 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022
11. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed. The compensation of Rs. 16,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified to a sum of Rs. 15,42,500/- C.M.A.No.562 of 2022 (M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015) and the compensation of Rs.13,75,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified to a sum of Rs.8,97,800/-
C.M.A.No.568 of 2022 (M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015). Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015 and M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub-Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District), together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount now determined by this Court, as apportioned by the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022 connected miscellaneous are closed.
14.09.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order srn To:
1.The Subordinate Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
2.The Section Officer V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
11/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022 P.T.ASHA, J., srn C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022 and CMP.Nos.4107 & 4089 of 2022 14.09.2022 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis