Madras High Court
M/S.Reliance General Insurance ... vs M.Meena on 9 April, 2021
CMA.No.3904 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
CMA.No.3904 of 2019
and
CMP.No.22226 of 2019
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.6, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 34 …. Appellant
Versus
1.M.Meena
2.M.Elangovani
3.Minor M.Dinesh
(Minor rep by his mother & NG M.Meena)
4.D.Thulasi
5.A.Srinivasa Rao …. Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.01.2019 made in
MCOP No.3212 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Special Sub Court No.1), Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
CMA.No.3904 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.A.Venkatesan
For R5 : Exparte
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.KANNAMMAL, J)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Decree dated 22.01.2019 made in MCOP No.3212 of 2013 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1, Chennai.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-
On 28.02.2013 at about 11.00 hours, the deceased was riding in a Motor
Cycle bearing registration No.TN-10W-4 from Tharatchi to Periyapalayam. At
that time, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-20-BU-9599 being driven from
Uthukottai to Periyapalayam came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the motorcycle driven by the deceased and caused the accident. As a
result, the deceased was thrown out, sustained fatal injuries and died on the
spot. Contending that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving on the part of the lorry driver of the first respondent vehicle, which was
insured with the second respondent, the legal heirs of the deceased have
claimed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.3904 of 2019
3. The Insurance Company, in the counter statement, has denied all the
allegations except those that are specifically admitted. The Insurance Company
stated that the lorry involved in the accident is covered by valid insurance
policy and its driver had valid driving licence at the time of accident. The
appellant/Insurance Company has denied the claim made by the claimants,
regarding the age, income, occupation.
4. The Tribunal, upon analyzing the evidence and documents placed
before it, has given a finding that the accident occurred only due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-
BU-9599. The Insurance Company did not file any documentary evidence to
disprove the accident and not denied about the policy. Therefore, the Tribunal
held that the said lorry had a valid policy issued by the Insurance Company at
the time of the accident and accordingly fixed the liability on the Insurance
Company.
5. Based on the evidence and documents and also considering the age,
income and occupation of the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.30,10,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved against the said Award, the
appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.3904 of 2019
6. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side without any
principles. The monthly income, as taken by the tribunal at Rs.15,000/-, is
highly excessive and without any documentary evidence. Similarly, by
applying multiplier 15, the Tribunal has arrived at the loss of income, which is
also on the higher side. Further, the sum awarded under loss of love and
affection is without any basis.
7. Heard both sides and perused the documents available on records.
8. The main contention raised by the appellant/Insurance Company is that
the multiplier applied by the Tribunal by taking the notional monthly income of
the deceased is not proper, as the same is without any document produced
before the Tribunal. Further, the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal
is also on the higher side.
9. On a perusal of the Judgment of the Court below, it is observed that
the deceased was working as a Civil Contractor and Ex.P5 – Form-D Certificate
of Registration and Ex.P6-Ellapuram Block Development Certificate were filed
before the Tribunal and hence the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.15,000/-.
It is also observed that the Tribunal has determined the annual loss of income
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.3904 of 2019
by applying the correct multiplier of 15 for 38 years of the age of the deceased
as per Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another.
Considering the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and proper which called for no
interference.
10. In view of the above facts and reasonings, this Court has no
hesitation in confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by confirming the award passed by the
Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire
award amount along with interest awarded by the Tribunal, after adjusting the
amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is
directed to transfer the shares of respective claimants to their bank accounts
through RTGS within one week thereon.
[R.P.S.,J] [S.K.,J]
09.04.2021
Internet : Yes/No
lpp
R.SUBBIAH, J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.3904 of 2019
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court No.1, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
CMA.No.3904 of 2019
and
CMP.No.22226 of 2019
09.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
