Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Dhanam on 27 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.3145 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.Nos.3145 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.17759 of 2019
National Insurance Company Ltd,
Divisional Office – 2,
11, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem – 7. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Dhanam
2.Minor Janani
3.Minor Rudhravel
4.Minor Kandavel
5.Lakshmi ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal order dated 13.02.2017
passed in M.C.O.P.No.1599 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.
For Appellant : M/s.N.B.Surekha
For Respondents : Mr.K.Kuppusamy for R1
R5 and R6 - No appearance
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company is the appellant in this appeal. By the
impugned Judgment and decree dated 13.02.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.1599 of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 6
C.M.A.No.3145 of 2019
2012, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,45,000/- as compensation
to the respondents/claimants.
2. In this appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company, has questioned
the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the respondents/claimants. The learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company submits that the accident was purely on
account of the negligence of the deceased and therefore the Tribunal
ought not to have awarded the above compensation.
3.She submits that eventhough, the claim petition was filed under
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the evidence on record
brings out the fact that the driver of the insured vehicle was not negligent
inasmuch as the accident occured on account of the deceased trying to
avoid pedestrian and applying sudden break, as a result of which, he fell
from the motor bike on to the opposite side of the road and got injured by
the insured vehicle coming from the opposite direction.
4.It is therefore submitted that even though, the claim has been
filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 6
C.M.A.No.3145 of 2019
5.It is therefore submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have
award the compensation, as the driver of the insured vehicle was not
responsible for the accident. It is futher submitted that alternatively
submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was in excess under
the conventional heads and contray to the 2nd schedule.
6.Defending the impugned order, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent/1st claimant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly adopted
the multiplier of 15 and therefore the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal has to be enhanced by applying 16 multiplier as per the 2nd
schedule to the Act, but at the same time, the amount awarded towards
other conventional heads is to be reduced.
7.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
8.The Tribunal has wrongly considered 15 multiplier perhaps
without referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another, (2009) 6 SCC 12. The multiplier given in the table in Sarla
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 6
C.M.A.No.3145 of 2019
verma is applicable for compensation to be awarded under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since the age of the deceased was 37
years and correct multiplier is to be appeared 16 as per the 2 nd schedule.
The amount awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and
loss of estate is re-quantified as follows:-
Loss of Income Rs.4,80,000/-
(30,000x16)
Funeral Expenses Rs. 2,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 2,000/-
Total Rs.4,89,000/-
9.The appellant/Insurance Company is therefore directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.4,89,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of numbering of the claim petition till the date of such
deposit, less any amount already deposited by it, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
10.On such deposit being made by the appellant/Insurance
Company, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same
together with interest accrued thereon in the same proportion as was
ordered by the Tribunal, less any amount already withdrawn.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 6
C.M.A.No.3145 of 2019
11. Since the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents/2nd, 3rd and 4th claimants
are stated to be minors at the time of filing of the claim petition, their
shares shall be deposited in an interest bearing account and the interest
shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the 1st respondent/1st claimant for the
benefit of the minors. On attaining the age of majority, the 2 nd, 3rd and 4th
respondents/2nd, 3rd and 4th claimants may also file appropriate
application for withdrawing their share of compensation.
12.Accordingly, this appeal stands partly allowed in terms of above
observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
27.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes / No
jas
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 6
C.M.A.No.3145 of 2019
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas
To:
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Salem.
2.The V.R.Section,
Madras High Court.
C.M.A.No.3145 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.17759 of 2019
27.04.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 6
