Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Aswathammal on 30 April, 2021
C.M.A. No.2088 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A. No.2088 of 2016
and
CMP No.15213 of 2016
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Varanasi Towers,
Mission Street,
Bunder,
Mangalore. .... Appellant
versus
1. Aswathammal
2. Minor Chennakesavan
3. Minor Anjana Devi @ Anji
4. Venkatesan
5. A. Govardhan Reddy ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 made
in MCOP No.902 of 2013 on the file of the MACT (PDJ) at Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.T. Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivakumar for R1 to R4
R5 - Returned
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2088 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company
challenging the award dated 23.12.2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Krishnagiri in MCOP No.902 of
2013.
2. Heard Mr.T. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.M.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. The 5th
respondent remained ex-parte both before the Tribunal and before this
Court.
3. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award.
4. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the impugned
award primarily on the ground that the rider of the two wheeler is
responsible for the cause of the accident and hence, the appellant /
Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claim of the respondents
/ claimants. They have also challenged the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company on
instructions would submit that the Legal Representatives and dependants of
the rider of the two wheeler (one of the deceased due to the same accident)
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2088 of 2016
had also preferred a separate claim viz., MCOP No.234 of 2014, seeking
compensation before the very same Tribunal and an award was passed in
their favour directing the appellant / Insurance Company to pay the
compensation and in that award, no contributory negligence was fixed on
the part of the rider of the two wheeler, who was also one of the deceased.
6. On instructions, she fairly submits that no appeal has been filed by
the Insurance Company, as against the findings of the Tribunal on the
award (corresponds to MCOP No.234 of 2014) for the death of the rider of
the two wheeler (involved in the same accident) holding the appellant /
Insurance Company liable to pay the entire compensation to the claimants
without fixing any contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the
two wheeler.
7. Since, the finding of the Tribunal as regards the contributory
negligence of the rider of the two wheeler has not been challenged by te
appellant / Insurance Company, the pillion rider who also died in the very
same accident for which the respondents / claiamnts have made a claim in
MCOP No.902 of 2013 cannot also be responsible for any contributory
negligence. Therefore, the first contention raised by the appellant seeking
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2088 of 2016
for a direction to fix contributory negligence on the part of the deceased
travelling as a pillion rider is also rejected by this Court.
8. With regard to the second contention raised by the appellant
questioning the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.16,71,500/- to the respondents / claimants under the
impugned award as detailed hereunder :
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Future Loss of income 13,77,000/-
Loss of love and affection to the 50,000/-
petitioners 1 and 4 (Rs.25000 x 2)
Loss of love and affection for the 2,00,000/-
petitioners 2 and 3 who had lost
their father at the age of 4 years
and 2 years (1,00,000 x 2)
Medical bills Ex.P7 (rounded off 12,500/-
Rs.12,500/-)
Transport to Hospital 7,000/-
Funeral expenses 25,000/-
Total 16,71,500/-
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2088 of 2016
9. The accident happened in the year 2012. The deceased was aged
28 years at the time of accident and was a Priest in a Temple. In the claim
petition, the respondents / claimants have pleaded that the deceased was
earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident. However, the Tribunal
has fixed the same at Rs.9,000/- which in the considered view of this Court
cannot be considered to be excessive. The Tribunal has also correctly
applied the right multiplier of 17 as the deceased was aged 28 years at the
time of the accident.
10. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of
love and affection at Rs.50,000/- to the respondents 1 and 4, who are the
parents of the deceased and Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondents 2 and 3, who
are the minor children (aged 4 and 2 years respectively at the time of
accident) of the deceased respectively cannot be considered to be excessive.
11. Similarly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
heads transportation at Rs.7,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/-
cannot also be considered to be excessive.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2088 of 2016
12. The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.12,500/-
towards medical expenses, which is supported by medical bills, which were
filed as Ex.P7 series, before the Tribunal and the same is confirmed.
Therefore, there is no scope for interference with regard to the
compensation awarded towards medical expenses also.
13. Thus, the overall compensation is a just compensation and does
not call for any interference. Accordingly, the second second contention
raised by the appellant / Insurance Company questioning the quantum of
compensation is also rejected by this Court.
14. 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.
15. 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2088 of 2016
amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of MCOP No.902 of 2013 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court),
Krishnagiri, 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
transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the first and fourth
respondents / first and fourth 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 second and third respondents /
minor claimants are concerned, the same shall be deposited in Fixed
deposit in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till they attain 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 second and third claimants / minor claimants have attained
the age of majority, it is open to them to file formal petition before the
Tribunal to get their share of apportionment.
30.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking / Non speaking
vsi2
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2088 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
To :
1. The Principal District Judge,
Special District Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. section,
High Court, Madras - 104.
C.M.A. No.2088 of 2016
30.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
