Madras High Court
Valli vs Ramasamy on 26 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.339 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.339 of 2016
1.Valli
2.Kumar ... Appellants/Claimants
..Vs..
1.Ramasamy
2.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Sri Lakshmi Complex,
1st Floor, Bharathi Street,
Omalur Main Road,
Swarapuri Salem Dt. ... Respondents/Respondents
(Notice to R1 is dispensed with -
set ex parte before the Tribunal)
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree in MCOP.No.720 of
2012 dated 25.08.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Judge, Namakkal.
For Appellants : Mr.TS.Arthaneswaran
for Mr.C.Paraneedharan
For Respondent 2 : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
R1-set exparte
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.339 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated
25.08.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal
District Judge, Namakkal) in MCOP.No.720 of 2012.
2. Heard Mr.TS.Arthaneswaran, learned counsel representing
Mr.C.Paraneedharan, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr.S.Arun
kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent. Since the first respondent
was set exparte before the Tribunal, notice to the first respondent is
dispensed with by this Court.
3. The Appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased minor boy
Karthikjeeva, who died on 24.12.2011 as a result of an accident caused by a
vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second
respondent. The Appellants/claimants preferred a claim before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of their son
Karthikjeeva.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.339 of 2016
4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the impugned Award
directed the second respondent to pay the Appellants/claimants a
compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- together with interest and costs as detailed
hereunder:
Heads Award amount (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 2,25,000/-
Non-pecuniary damages 75,000/-
Future Prospects 75,000/-
Total 3,75,000/-
5. The Appellants/claimants being unsatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal have preferred this appeal seeking
for enhancement.
6. The deceased is a minor boy who was aged six years old at the time
of the accident which happened on 24.12.2011. The Appellants have
challenged the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has not
awarded compensation towards loss of love and affection, towards funeral
expenses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest decision in the case of
Rajendra Singh & Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.339 of 2016
Others reported in CDJ 2020 SC 585, in a case also involving a minor who
died as a result of an accident on 25.12.2012 held that the compensation
assessed at Rs.2,95,000/- cannot be considered to be unjust and therefore,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not persuaded to enhance the compensation
so fixed. In the case on hand, the accident happened on 24.12.2011 and the
deceased minor is aged six years and the Tribunal has awarded a total
compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- which included Rs.2,25,000/- towards loss
of dependency, Rs.75,000/- towards non pecuniary damages and another
sum of Rs.75,000/- towards Future Prospects and therefore, the contention
of the Appellants/claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is inadequate and unjust has to be rejected by this Court. Even in the case of
Rajendra Singh referred to supra, the deceased was aged 12 years when
the accident happened on 25.12.2012. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was not persuaded to enhance the compensation from Rs.2,95,000/- for a
deceased minor aged 12 years for an accident that happened on 25.12.2012,
this Court cannot enhance the compensation to a deceased minor aged 6
years for an accident that happened in the year 2011 as the compensation
fixed by the Tribunal is Rs.3,75,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.339 of 2016
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this Appeal.
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. The
Second Respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire
award amount along with interest and costs as assessed by the Tribunal after
deducting the amount already deposited if any to the credit of
MCOP.No.720 of 2012 within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the
Tribunal shall transfer the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.720 of
2012 to the bank account of the respective Appellants/claimants as per the
ratio apportioned by the Tribunal through RTGS within a period of one
week thereafter. No costs.
26.04.2021
nl
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.339 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Namakkal
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.339 of 2016
26.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
