Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs N.Rajeswari on 29 April, 2021
C.M.A. No.2679 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.2679 of 2016
and
CMP No.19160 of 2016
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.73, Chittoor road,
1st Floor,
Tiruthani - 631 209. .... Appellant
versus
1. N.Rajeswari
2. M.C.Gomathi
3. C. Yeswini (minor)
rep. by her mother and next friend
N.Rajeswari 1st respondent herein
4. M.Sounarammal
5. P.Ganesan
6. T.R.Subramani ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 18.04.2016 made in
MCOP No.8069 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.D. Bhaskaran
For Respondents : Mr.K.Suryanarayan
Minors rep. by R2
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2679 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
award dated 18.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II
Court of Small Causes), Chennai in MCOP No. 8069 of 2013.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the impugned
award on the following grounds :
a) The Tribunal has erred in taking Income Tax returns
which was filed after the death.
b) the claimants have not examined a Chartered
Accountant and have also not marked Profit and Loss Account,
Balance Sheet and account books
c) The Tribunal has erred in taking 30% future prospects.
d) The Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the 2nd
respondent / 2nd claimant is a married daughter and therefore
ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased but has erroneously deducted 1/4th .
e) the award of Rs.5,75,000/- granted by the Tribunal
towards conventional damages is also highly excessive.
3. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the appellant /
Insurance Company to the respondents / claimants a compensation of
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2679 of 2016
Rs.42,32,000/- for the death of M.Chiranjeevulu caused by a vehicle insured
with the appellant on 14.07.2013.
4. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are as
follows :
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of Pecuniary Benefits 36,57,000/-
Loss of Love and affection 4,00,000/-
Loss of Consortium 1,00,000/-
Loss of Estate 50,000/-
Funeral expenses 25,000/-
Total compensation 42,32,000/-
5. The deceased Mr. M.Chiranjeevulu was aged 47 years at the time of
the accident, which happened on 14.07.2013, which is not disputed by the
appellant. He was a Plumbing and Borewell Contractor. The respondents /
Claimants have filed the Income Tax returns for the assessment years from
2010-11 to 2013-14, which has been marked as Ex.P7 before the Tribunal.
6. As seen from the Income Tax returns of the deceased filed by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2679 of 2016
respondents / claimants for the assessment year 2013-14, the gross income of
the deceased was Rs.3,24,732/- and the Tribunal has accepted the same and
has fixed the gross income at Rs.3,24,732/-. The Tribunal has deducted 10%
towards Income tax and fixed the net income of the deceased at Rs.2,92,259/-
rounded off to Rs.2,92,300/-. Only based on the Income Tax Returns, the
Tribunal has rightly assessed the gross income of the deceased at
Rs.3,24,732/-. No contra evidence has been produced by the appellant /
Insurance Company before the Tribunal to disprove the claim of the
respondents / claimants that the deceased was earning gross income of
Rs.3,24,732/- during the assessment year 2013-2014. The Tribunal has
rightly accepted the gross income of the deceased at Rs.3,24,732/- and
therefore, there is no scope for interference by this Court with regard to the
same and this Court accepts the findings of the Tribunal.
7. The deceased was a Plumbing and Borewell Contractor at the time
of the accident and his income varies from year to year, as seen from the
Income Tax returns. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2679 of 2016
16 SCC 680, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the loss of future prospects at
25%, but has erroneously fixed the same at 30% and accordingly this Court
reduces the loss of future prospects to 25% instead of 30% fixed by the
Tribunal.
8. The second respondent / second claimant is a married daughter and
therefore cannot be treated as a dependant of the deceased. Hence, the
Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased. No evidence has also been placed by the respondents / claimants
to prove that the second respondent / second claimant is a dependant of the
deceased. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal
ought to have adopted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased
instead of 1/4th under the impugned award. Accordingly, this Court modifies
the deduction to 1/3rd instead of 1/4th made by the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal has rightly applied the correct multiplier of 13 for the
deceased who was aged 47 years at the time of the accident and after
deducting an amount of Rs.15,915/- towards Income tax, the loss of
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2679 of 2016
pecuniary benefits awarded to the respondents / claimants under the
impugned award is reduced to Rs.33,80,000/- from Rs.36,57,000/- as
awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal has also awarded a higher compensation towards
conventional damages which is not in accordance with the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 16 SCC 680
11. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of consortium, which has to be reduced to Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal has
also awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of love and
affection to the respondents / claimants, which has to be reduced to
Rs.1,40,000/- (on adhoc basis) as per the decision of Pranay Sethi as
referred to supra.
12. The Tribunal has also awarded a higher compensation to the
respondents / claimants towards loss of estate at Rs.50,000/- which has to be
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2679 of 2016
reduced to Rs.15,000/- as per the settled law. Similarly the Tribunal has
awarded a higher compensation towards funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/-
which has to be reduced to Rs.15,000/- as per the settled law.
13. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards
transportation cost and this Court awards a compensation of Rs.10,000/-
under the said head.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the award of the Tribunal is hereby
modified in the following manner :
Heads Amount awarded Amount reduced
by the Tribunal by this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of Pecuniary Benefits 36,57,000/- 33,80,000/-
Loss of Love and affection 4,00,000/- 1,40,000/-
Loss of Consortium 1,00,000/- 40,000/-
Loss of Estate 50,000/- 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-
Transportation cost - 10,000/-
Total 42,32,000/- 36,00,000/-
15. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant / Insurance Company,
stands partly allowed by reducing the compensation from Rs.42,32,000/- to
Rs.36,00,000/- as indicated above. No costs.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2679 of 2016
16a. The second respondent / Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the reduced award amount, as assessed by this Court 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 MCOP No.8069 of
2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (II Court of Small
Causes), Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Judgment. It is made clear that the appellant / Insurance
Company is permitted to withdraw excess amount, if any paid by them.
16b.On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer
the award amount directly to the bank account of the respondents 1,2 and 4
/claimants 1,2 and 4, 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 third respondent / minor claimant is concerned, the same
shall be deposited in Fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till
she attains the age of majority and the interest accrued thereon shall be
withdrawn by the guardian of the minor claimant once in three months,
directly from the Bank. If the third respondent / minor claimant has attained
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2679 of 2016
the age of majority, it is open to her to file formal petition before the Tribunal
to get her share of apportionment.
29.04.2021
vsi2
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking / Non speaking
To :
1. The II Judge,
II Court of Small Causes
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. section,
High Court, Madras - 104.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2679 of 2016
vsi2
C.M.A. No.2679 of 2016
29.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
