Renugadevi vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 9015 Mad

                                                          1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 01.04.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR


                           Review Application Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021

                1.Renugadevi,
                2.Senthil Kumar,                                    ..Review Petitioners
                                                                    in Rev.Appl.No.16 of 2021

                1.Senthil Kumar,
                2.Renugadevi,
                  Eaelammal (deceased)                              ..Review Petitioners
                                                                    in Rev.Appl.No.17 of 2021

                1.Kupputhai,
                2.Vanitha,
                3.Priya.                                            ..Review Petitioners
                                                                    in Rev.Appl.No.18 of 2021

                1.G.Priya,
                2.Minor G.Nithin,
                3.R.Santhamani.                                     ..Review Petitioners
                                                                    in Rev.Appl.No.19 of 2021

                1.R.Ramya,
                2.R.Aravinthan,
                3.P.Gnanambal (Deceased)                            ..Review Petitioners
                                                                    in Rev.Appl.No.21 of 2021

                1.R.Santhamani,
                2.G.Priya,
                3.Minor G.Nithin.                                   ..Review Petitioners
                                                                    in Rev.Appl.No.23 of 2021


                1.Vanitha,
                2.Priya.                                            ..Review Petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/                                    in Rev.Appl.No.24 of 2021
                                                             2


                Ashwathaman (died)
                1.R.Ramya,
                2.R.Aravinthan.                                          ..Review Petitioners
                                                                         in Rev.Appl.No.26 of 2021


                                                            Vs.

                1.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
                   Dindigul.

                2.The United India Insurance Co.,
                  Divisional Office,
                  Udumalpet.

                3.T.D.Ganeshkumar,

                4.P.J.Selvan                                                  .. Respondents
                                                                           in all Rev.Appls.




                Common Prayer:          Review Applications filed under Order 47, Rule 1 read with

                Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to review the judgment passed

                by this Court on 30.07.2018 in C.M.A.Nos.3479 to 3485 and 3662 of 2012.

                                   For Petitioners                  :Mr.S.Karthikeibalan
                                   in all Rev.Appls.

                                   For Respondents                  :Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy for R1.
                                    in all Rev.Appls.                Ms.I.Malar for R2

                                                            *****

COMMON ORDER

Before parting the order in Review Application Nos.18 and 21 of 2021, the

counsel for the petitioners have filed a memo dated 16.03.2021. In the said memo https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

it is stated that the 1st review petitioner in Review Appeal NO.18 of 2021 is no

more and the same should be recorded. Likewise, the 3rd review petitioner in

Review Appeal No.21 of 2021 has died and the same should be recorded. The said

memo are taken into file and the Registry is directed to carry out necessary

amendment in the cause title.

2. These review applications were filed by the respondents in

C.M.A.Nos.3479 to 3485 and 3662 of 2012 as against the judgment passed by this

Court on 30.07.2018, raising various grounds.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the learned

counsel for respondents Insurance Company.

4.On the earlier occasions, the arguments advanced by both the parties,

after having discussing the issues, this Court has recorded that, even though the

review petitioners have raised several grounds in the review applications as

against the final judgment passed in the appeals, this Court is inclined to accept

the following issues in order to decide the review applications.

5.The first issue raised is the multiplier method adopted in C.M.A.No.3481

of 2020 (Rev.Appl.No.18 of 2021), wherein the age of the deceased was 42 years

and the tribunal has adopted wrong multiplier as 13 instead of 14 years, as per the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma and others Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The

second issue raised by the review petitioners is that the order of withdrawal of the

50% of the amount deposited by the 1st respondent viz., The New India Assurance

Co. Ltd., Dindigul. According to the petitioners, by this order they would lose the

rate of interest which was accrued in the fixed deposits in the Nationalised Banks.

There is some force in this argument and therefore, this Court entertained both

the issues to be decided in these review applications.

6. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, the multiplier adopted by the

tribunal is not in consensus with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited

supra. Admittedly, there is no dispute with the age of the deceased. The age of

the deceased at the time of death is 42 years. The issue involved is bound by the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra. Therefore, the tribunal has

wrongly adopted the multiplier of 13 years and the review petitioner in R.A.No.18

of 2021 is entitled for the multiplier of 14 years in the light of the judgment cited

supra.

7. As far as the second issue is concerned, this Court has directed the 2nd

respondent-The United India Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the

compensation amount as apportioned share as alloted by this Court. In the

aforesaid order, this Court has directed the 2nd respondent, the United India https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Insurance company, to deposit 50% share of the compensation amount within a

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. According

to the 2nd respondent, the copy of the judgment was received belatedly. But in the

counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, they have not mentioned the

date of receipt of the copy of the order. But, the delay has been explained in

Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit but no specific explanations for the delay of

more than two years.

8. On the other hand, the review petitioners, who have got the final award

dated 08.10.2010, disputed the negligence on the part of the insurance company.

The first respondent viz.,The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Dindugal, who have

been directed to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimants have

preferred an appeal before this Court and this Court by judgment dated

30.07.2018 ordered that the Insurance companies are liable to pay 50% each of the

compensation amount in each case and therefore, the Insurance

companies/respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the award amount in each

CMA/MCOP with proportionate interest and cost, within six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of the order, less the amount already deposited.

9. The learned counsel for the first respondent viz., The New India

Assurance Co. Ltd., submitted that except some of the claimants, others have not

withdrawn 50% of the amount till date. Therefore, according to the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

counsel, the first respondent is entitled for refund of excess amount lying in

deposit. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioners, that the

petitioners have already suffered for more than 12 years and they were not able to

withdraw the award amount despite they losing their atleast one of their family

members and the dependants have lost their earning members of their respective

family. Thus, there is some force in the contention of the review petitioners that

despite the judgment copy received by the Insurance Companies, they have not

deposited the award amount within the time stipulated by this Court. Therefore,

he seeks for enhancement in the rate of interest from the date of default in

depositing the amount till the date of deposit to comply the judgment of this

Court. The learned counsel for the second respondent viz., The United India

Insurance Co. Ltd., submitted that in Paragraph 10 of their counter affidavit, they

have answered with regard to the delay in depositing the amount. However, on

perusal of the counter affidavit, there is no specific particulars or explanation

furnished for the delay in depositing the amount as directed by this Court, but it is

stated in the affidavit that in compliance with the judgment passed by this Court,

the said amount was deposited on 26.02.2021. Therefore, this Court is satisfied

with the submissions made on the above two issues raised and the review

petitioners have succeeded on the aforesaid two grounds and this Court passes the

following orders:

1.The age of the deceased in CMA No.3481 of 2012 is 42

years and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Court cited supra, 14 years multiplier is to be adopted, which

comes to Rs.6,72,000/-.

2.The petitioners in all the review applications is entitled

to the rate of interest of 9% p.a. from the date of default of the

amount to be deposited as per the judgment passed by this Court

on 30.07.2018 in C.M.A.Nos.3479 to 3485 and 3662 of 2012. The

difference in the interest amount shall be deposited by the

respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt

of copy of this order. It is left open to the review petitioners to

file appropriate application before the Tribunal to withdraw the

amount. On receipt of such application, the Tribunal shall

consider the same at the earliest in accordance with law.

10.Accordingly, these review applications are allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

01.04.2021

Issue order copy by 16.04.2021

Index:yes/no Internet:yes

Note: Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title.

rm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,

rm

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet.

2.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Dindigul.

3.The United India Insurance Co., Divisional Office, 144-B, Kalpana Road, Udumalpet.

Review Application Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021

01.04.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/