Madras High Court
Renugadevi vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 1 April, 2021
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
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
Page 1 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
1.Vanitha,
2.Priya. ..Review Petitioners
in Rev.Appl.No.24 of 2021
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
*****
Page 2 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
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 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
Page 3 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
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 2012 (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 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
Page 4 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
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 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
Page 5 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
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 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
Page 6 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
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 Court cited supra, 14 years
multiplier is to be adopted, which comes to
Rs.6,72,000/-.
Page 7 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
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. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the Review
Petitioners has a filed memo before this Court stating that the Review
Petitioners 2& 3 in Rev. Application No. 18 of 2021 in CMA.No. 3481 of 2012
are the only surviving dependants to the deceased /1st review petitioner
namely Kupputhai and the 1st & 2nd review petitioners in Rev. Application
No. 21 of 2021 in CMA.No. 3482 of 2012 are the only surviving dependants
Page 8 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
to the deceased /3rd review petitioner namely P. Gnanambal. According to
the learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners the aforesaid
persons are the surviving dependants to the deceased and he has also filed
the death certificates of the deceased Kupputhai and P.Gananabal to
substantiate his claim. At this stage, without establishing the same by the
petitioners before the concerned tribunal, this Court cannot entertain the
surviving dependants to claim the share amount of the deceased / 1st
review applicant in Rev.A.No.18 of 2021 and deceased / 3rd review
applicant in Rev.A.No.21 of 2021.
11. Therefore, liberty is granted to the Review Petitioners 2&3 in
Rev. Application No. 18 of 2021 in CMA.No. 3481 of 2012 and review
petitioners 1 & 2 in Rev. Application No. 21 of 2021 in CMA.No. 3482 of
2012 to establish their claim regarding the share of the deceased / 1 st
review applicant in Rev.A.No.18 of 2021 and deceased / 3rd review
applicant in Rev.A.No.21 of 2021 before the tribunal by filing appropriate
applications. Liberty is also granted to the above said review petitioners to
the effect that, if they succeed before the tribunal, they are permitted to
withdraw the compensation amount awarded by this Court in their
respective Review Applications equally.
Page 9 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
12. Accordingly, to the above extent, these review applications are
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
01.04.2021
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes
rm
Page 10 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Apl.Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 26 of 2021
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
Page 11 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
