Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Kanchana on 30 April, 2021
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
and
MP No.1 of 2015
The Branch Manager,
M/s.HDFC – ERGO General Insurance
Company Limited,
Regional Office,
Andheri – Kurla Road,
Andheri East,
Mumbai – 400 059. .... Appellant
versus
1. Kanchana
2. Minor Vikram
3. R. Kanchana
4. M/s.SNJ Distiller Pvt. Ltd.,
Kallapiranpuram Village,
Madurantagam Taluk,
Kanchipuram District.
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
5. V.Syed Vaheed (died),
Rep. By Receiver
Tmt. Mehara Nigar
(As per orders passed
in I.A. No.498 of 2015
in O.S.No.319 of 2015,
dated 13.09.2015,
on the file of
District Munsif Court, Hosur. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 04.09.2015 passed
in MCOP No.669 of 2012, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District Judge) at Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.Michael Visuvasam
For Respondents : R1 to R4 - Served - No appearance
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
award dated 04.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P. No.669 of 2012.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the impugned
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
award on the following grounds :-
a) The Tribunal has erroneously adopted the multiplier of 16 instead of
15 as the deceased was aged 36 years as per post morterm certificate which
was marked as Ex.P2.
b) The Tribunal has erroneously fixed the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.12,000/-, which according to the appellant / Insurance
Company is very high.
c) The Tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/4th towards personal
expenses of the deceased over looking the number of dependants / claimants,
who are three in number and therefore, the correct deduction according to the
appellant / Insurance Company is 1/3rd.
3. The Tribunal under the impugned award has directed the appellant /
Insurance Company to pay the respondents / claimants, who are the
dependants of the deceased a compensation of Rs.19,23,000/- as detailed
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
hereunder :
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of dependency 17,28,000/-
Loss of love and affection 75,000/-
Loss of consortium 50,000/-
Medical bill as per Ex.P.10 10,000/-
Inpatient bill as per Ex.P.11 50,000/-
Funeral expenses 10,000/-
Total 19,23,000/-
4. Heard Mr.J. Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel for the appellant /
Insurance Company. Despite service of notice on the respondents, there is no
representation on their behalf.
5. This Court has perused the materials and evidence available on
record before the Tribunal.
6. The deceased Senthil was aged 31 years at the time of the accident.
In the claim petition filed by the respondents / claimants, who are the legal
Representatives and the dependants of the deceased, they have pleaded that
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
Senthil was self employed and a wholesale vegetable vendor and was
earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. The accident happened on 21.01.2012. As seen
from the impugned award the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards loss of future prospects, which the respondents / claimants are
entitled at the rate of 40% as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in
2017 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, this Court awards 40% towards loss of
future prospects to the respondents / claimants.
7. The correct multiplier to be adopted for a person aged 36 years is 15
and not 16 as fixed by the Tribunal. Hence, the same is modified by this
Court to 15 instead of 16.
8. The Tribunal has also erroneously deducted 1/4th towards personal
expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd as the dependants / claimants are
three in number. Accordingly, this Court modifies the deduction to 1/3rd
instead of 1/4th made by the Tribunal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
9. The Tribunal has also fixed the notional monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.12,000/- for the accident that happened in the year 2012
without any documentary evidence, which in the considered view of this
Court is also high. However, by taking into consideration, the overall
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and in view of the fact that the loss of
future prospects has not been awarded which the respondents /claimants are
legally entitled to at the rate of 40%, this Court is of the considered view that
the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award
cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the appellant / Insurance
Company.
10. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11. The Appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire
award amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 7.5% p.a.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, less the amount, if
any, already deposited to the credit of MCOP No.669 of 2012, by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at 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 respondents 1 and 3 /claimants 1
and 3, 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 respondent / minor claimant is concerned, the same shall be
deposited in Fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till he 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 second respondent / minor claimant has attained the age of majority, it
is open to him to file formal petition before the Tribunal to get his share of
apportionment.
30.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking / Non speaking
vsi2
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
To :
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District Judge) at Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. section,
High Court, Madras - 104.
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.2843 of 2015
30.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
