Madras High Court
United India Insurance vs Pappayee on 29 April, 2021
C.M.A. No.678 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A. No.678 of 2016
and
CMP No.5501 of 2016
United India Insurance
Company Limited,
Divisional Office,
Namakkal. .... Appellant
versus
1. Pappayee
2. Rajeswari
3. Tamilarasi
4. Boomisekar
5. Minor - Roobak
6. Minor - Rahasree
7. Selvamani ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014 in
MCOP No.1514 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special District Judge, Salem).
For Appellant : Ms.R.Sreevidhya
For Respondents : Mr.R. Neelakandan for R1 to R6
R5 & R6 - Minors represented
by R4
R7 - Served - No appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.678 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
award dated 09.09.2014 passed by the learned Special District Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal at Salem in MCOP No.1514 of 2012.
2. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the appellant /
Insurance Company to pay the respondents / claimants a compensation of
Rs.5,05,200/- together with interests and costs as detailed below :-
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of income 4,00,200
Funeral expenses 25000
Loss of love and affection to 60000
petitioners 2,3 and 4 (each
Rs.20,000/-
Loss of love and affection to 20,000/-
petitioners 5 and 6 (each
Rs.10,000/-
Total 5,05,200/-
3. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.678 of 2016
award only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is excessive.
4. Heard Ms.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6. Despite
service of notice on the 7th respondent, there is no representation on his side.
5. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award before
the Tribunal.
6. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased; the second
respondent is the widowed daughter (first daughter) of the deceased; the 3rd
respondent is the second daughter of the deceased; the 4th respondent is the
son of the deceased and the 5th and 6th respondents are the grand children
(minors) of the deceased, born to the widowed daughter (2nd respondent.)
In the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal,
they have pleaded that the deceased Chinnusamy was aged 63 years and was
an Agriculturist as well as a Partner in M/s.Renuka Rig services earning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.678 of 2016
Rs.50,000/-p.m.
7. Before the Tribunal, the respondents / claimants have filed 13
documents, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A13 and two witnesses were
examined on their side viz., 1st respondent / 1st claimant, the wife of the
deceased as PW1 and an eye witness to the accident as PW2. On the side of
the appellant / Insurance Company neither any document has been filed nor
any witness has been examined before the Tribunal.
8. The respondents / claimants have filed Patta (Ex.P6) to
substantiate their claim that the deceased was the owner of the agricultural
lands measuring an extent of 11 acres and they have also filed the
partnership deed which has been marked as Ex.A10 to substantiate their
claim that the deceased was a Partner in M/s.Renuka Rig Services as
pleaded in the claim petition filed by the respondents. The Tribunal after
giving due consideration to the materials and evidence available on record
has fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. The
accident happened on 05.09.2012. No contra evidence has been produced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.678 of 2016
by the appellant / Insurance Company before the Tribunal to disprove the
avocation of the deceased.
9. The Tribunal under the impugned award has given due
consideration to the Patta as well as the Partnership deed which were
marked as Exhibits and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/-. This Court after giving due consideration to the year of the
accident as well as the avocation of the deceased and the pleadings made by
the respondents / claimants is of the considered view that the assessment of
the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal is a
correct assessment and does not call for any interference.
10. The Tribunal has also given due consideration to the fact that the
second respondent / second claimant is a widowed daughter of the deceased
and the respondents 5 and 6 are minor children born to the widowed
daughter and the grand children of the deceased and only thereafter has
awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,05,200/- under various heads. In fact,
the Tribunal has not even awarded compensation towards loss of estate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.678 of 2016
though the respondents / claimants duly entitled for the same. After giving
due consideration to the aforementioned factors, this Court is of the
considered view that the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the respondents / claimants is a just compensation and cannot be considered
to be excessive as alleged by the appellant / Insurance Company.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in
this appeal and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
12. The Appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire award amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, less the
amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.1514 of 2012
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge,
Salem, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.678 of 2016
transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the respondents 1
to 4 / major claimants, as per the same ratio of apportionment made by the
Tribunal, through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter. Insofar
as the share of the fifth and sixth respondents / minor claimants are
concerned, the same shall be deposited in Fixed deposit in any one of the
Nationalised Banks, till they attain the age of majority and the interest
accrued thereon shall be withdrawn by the guardian of the minor claimants
once in three months, directly from the Bank.
29.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking / Non speaking
vsi2
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.678 of 2016
vsi2
To :
1. The Special District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Salem.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. section,
High Court, Madras - 104.
C.M.A. No.678 of 2016
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
