No.751 vs I.Rajeswari
2021 Latest Caselaw 10931 Mad

                                                          C.M.A.No.859 of 2013
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                             DATED:    28.04.2021

                                   CORAM:

       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                           C.M.A.No.859 of 2013 and
                               MP.No.1 of 2013

M/s.National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
                      nd

No.751, Anna Salai, 2 Floor,
Chennai – 600 002                                   ... Appellant

                                    Versus

1.I.Rajeswari
2.Minor I.Amuthavalli
3.Minor Velmurugan
 (Minors 2 & 3 rep. by guardian
  the first respondent mother)
4.N.Durai                                                 ... Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.3845
of 2008 on 20.04.2012 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge) at Chennai District.


                   For Appellant       : Mr.J.Chandran

                   For Respondents : No Appearance

                              JUDGMENT

C.M.A.No.859 of 2013 This appeal has been laid as against the judgment and decree passed

in M.C.O.P.No.3845 of 2008 on 20.04.2012 on the file of the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge) at

Chennai District, thereby awarded the compensation to the tune of

Rs.9,72,000/-.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to

hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 05.09.2008, when the

deceased was riding bicycle from Perungudi to Thoraipakkam along Old

Mahabalipuram Road south to north direction, the motorcycle which was

driven in rash and negligent manner dashed against him from behind. As a

result, he sustained severe injuries and died during the course of treatment.

Hence, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation at

Rs.12,00,000/-

4. Resisting the same, the second respondent / appellant filed

counter stating that the rider of the motorcycle / first respondent does not

possess valid driving licence. That apart, the accident happened only due to

C.M.A.No.859 of 2013 rash and negligent riding of the bicycle by the deceased. Therefore, the

second respondent is not held to be liable for any compensation to the

claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the side of the claimants, they examined P.W.1 to and P.W.3

and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. On the side of the respondents neither oral nor

documentary evidence was let in. On the basis of the evidence available on

records and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel

appearing on either side, the Tribunal fastened negligence on the part of the

rider of the motorcycle and awarded compensation of Rs.9,72,000/- payable

by the respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the second

respondent came forward with the present appeal in respect of quantum of

compensation.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. Even then, applied

multiplier at 16, which is highly excessive and exorbitant. The accident took

place only on the rash and negligent riding of the cycle by the deceased and

as such the claimants are entitled only under the head of no fault liability. He

further submits that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was

C.M.A.No.859 of 2013 Mason at the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs.350/- per month.

7. Heard Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant / second respondent.

8. On 05.09.2008, when the deceased was riding bicycle from

Perungudi to Thoraipakkam, the motorcycle owned by the first respondent

was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the bicycle.

Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Though the

claimants averred that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.350/- per day,

the Tribunal had taken into consideration, the notional income at Rs.5,000/-

per month and rightly applied multiplier at 16. Insofar as other heads are

concerned, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation and as

such this Court finds that the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant

any interference.

9. In view of the above discussion, the following orders are

passed:

(i) The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the total

compensation of Rs.9,72,000/- with accrued interest as determined at by the

C.M.A.No.859 of 2013 Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited.

(ii) On such deposit, the first respondent herein is permitted to

withdraw her share of the award amount as apportioned by the Tribunal, less

the amount if any already withdrawn by her, by filing proper application

before the Tribunal.

                                    nd           rd

         (iii) The share of the 2        and 3        respondents herein /minors are

directed to be deposit in any one of the nationalized bank till they attain

nd rd

majority. The first respondent herein /Mother of the 2 and 3 respondents

herein is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months..

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok

10. With the above directions, this civil miscellaneous appeal is

dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No

Costs.

C.M.A.No.859 of 2013 28.04.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/no lok

To

1. The XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chennai District

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

C.M.A.No.859 of 2013