Madras High Court
The Manager vs Premalatha on 19 April, 2021
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HONOURABLE TMT. JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A. Nos.631 and 1355 of 2021
and
CMP Nos. 3860 and 6976 of 2021
The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.6, Haddaws Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006. .. Appellant in both the CMAs.
Versus
1.Premalatha
W/o.Late Ravindra Raju
2.Swarnakumar,
S/o.Late Ravindra Raju
3.Mamatha
D/o.Late Ravindra Raju
(2nd & 3rd as major declared in
I.A.No.257/15 andI.A.No.258/2014
amended as per order in I.A.No.12/2016
dated 08.01.2016)
4.Chinnamma @ Ammaniamma
W/o.Subbaragava Raju
5.V.J.Balasubramani
S/o.Jayarama Chettiyar .. Respondents in CMA No.631 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
1.Krishnaveni
W/o.Late Jayakumar
2.Minor Harshvardhan
S/o.Late Jayakumar
(minor rep by his mother and
natural guardian Krishnaveni)
3.Subramania Raju
S/o.Late Nagaraju
4.Janakiammal
W/o.Subramania Raju
5.V.J.Balasubramani,
S/o.Jayarama Chettiyar .. Respondents in CMA No.1355 of 2021
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section
173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated
15.04.2016 made in MCOP. Nos. 251 and 252 of 2015, respectively on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court,
Tiruvallur.
For appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
(in both the appeals)
For respondents
for R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Velmurugan
(in both the appeals)
for R5 : Ex-parte
(in both the appeals)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
COMMON JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.KANNAMMAL, J)
These Civil Miscellanous Appeal Nos. 631 of 2021 and 1355 of
2021 have been filed by the Insurance Company against the award made
in MCOP.Nos.251 and 252 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident
Tribunal, Special District, Tiruvallur. Since both the appeals are against
the same award, a common judgement is pronounced.
2. The claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.251 and 252 of 2015 claimed a
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- each respectively for the death of one
Ravindra Raju and for the death of one Jayakumar caused in a road
accident. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.28,76,884/- and
Rs.25,79,000/- respectively. Against which, the appellant/Insurance
Company preferred C.M.A.Nos. 631 of 2021 and 1355 of 2021.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as
described before the Tribunal.
4. The brief common averments made in the claim petitions are as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
On 08.03.2009 at 5,45 p.m., near Balaji Water Company at
Solavarm Bypass road, Nellur-Chennai National Highways, the deceased
Jayakumar (O.P.252 of 2015), as a rider, and the deceased Ravindara
Raju (O.P.251 of 2015), as a pillion rider, were travelling in a motor
cycle bearing Registration No.TN-07-BB-5814 proceeding from
Gummidipoondi to Chennai. The first respondent vehicle viz.,
breakdown lorry bearing Regsitration No.TN-01-W-2360 was stopped in
the middle of the road without any signal, parking light and any other
signs like keeping red square at rear side of the said lorry. The rider of
the motor cycle hit behind the rear portion of the lorry, as a result of
which, both the rider and pillion rider sustained grievous head injuries
and died on the spot. Contending that the accident occurred only due to
the negligent manner on the part of the driver of the lorry, which was
insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company, the legal heirs of the
deceased Ravindra Raju in M.C.O.P.No. 251 of 2015 have claimed a sum
of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation and the legal heirs of the deceased
Jayakumar in M.C.O.P.No.252 of 2015 have claimed a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. The first respondent is the owner of the
vehicle and the second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. The
second respondent viz., Relieance General Insurance Company resisted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
the claim petitions and filed the counter.
5. The common averments made in the counter filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company in brief are as follows:
The appellant/Insurance Company denied all the allegations in the
petition except the allegations, which are specifically admitted. The
claimants should prove the age occupation and monthly income of the
deceased. The place, date and time of the accident are not admitted. The
claimants should prove that they are the only legalheirs and dependents
of the deceased by documentary evidence. The deceased Jayakumar
along with the pillon rider viz., the deceased Ravindra Raju without
observing the traffic rules and regulations and without noticing the first
respondents vehicle TATA Lorry being parked in an drunken condition,
hit the lorry and caused the accident. The accident happened only
because of the negligence riding of the deceased Jayakumar and
therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation
to the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
6. In both petitions, the claimants examined three witnesses and
marked 29 documents. On the side of the respondents no witness was
examined and no document was marked.
7. The Tribunal, on analysis of both oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent
act of the driver of the lorry, who left the lorry without any parking light
and had also not taken any efforts to divert the moving vehicles in the
road. At the time of accident, the lorry driver was not possessing any
valid license and the lorry was insured with the appellant/insurance
company. By a common judgement, the Tribunal has awarded as a sum
of Rs.28,76,884/- and Rs.25,79,000/- respectively. Since, the vehicle was
insured with the appellant/Insurance Company herein, the Insurance
Company was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation
amount. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the Insurance
Company has filed these Appeals.
8. In the grounds of appeals, the appellant/Insurance
Company has stated that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on
the higher side without any principles. According to the appellant,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
curiously, though the claim was made only Rs.15,00,000/- by the
claimants, the Tribunal has awarded as a sum of Rs.28,76,884/- and
Rs.25,79,000/- respectively. The monthly income, as taken by the
Tribunal at Rs.16839/- for the deceased Ravindra Raju and Rs.12,000/-
for the deceased Jayakumar, is highly excessive. It is further stated that
the tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of P.W.3, the
interested witness who supported the claimants.
9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
records.
10. On a perusal of records, it is seen that before the Tribunal
P.W.3 was examined, who has clearly deposed that the deceased
Jayakumar, who drove the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-07-
BB-5814 with his brother Ravindra Raju as a pillion rider, were
proceeding from Gummidipoondi to Chennai. At that time, a lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-01-W-2360 was stopped ahead in the middle
of the GNT Road, due to breakdown, without any signal, parking light
and any other signs like keeping the red square, traffic cones, etc., the
two wheeler hit against the rear side of the broke down lorry. According
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
to him, due to the negligent manner in which the lorry was stopped by
the driver of the lorry, the accident had occurred. The Tribunal, on
considering the evidence and other documents and witnesses has given a
finding by fixing negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Before
this Court, though, the liability is also denied by the appellant, the main
argument advanced is only against the quantum. Though the appellant
denied about the liability before the Tribunal, the appellant/insurance
company has not let in any oral or documentary evidence to prove its
contention. The Tribunal has also rightly fixed the liability on the driver
of the lorry which called for no interference.
11. The main contention raised by the appellant/Insurance
Company in both the appeals, is that the multiplier applied by the
Tribunal by taking the notional monthly income of the deceased is not
proper and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive
and sought for reduction of compensation. It was further contented that
the Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of P.W.3 the
interested witness, who supported the claimants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
CMA No. 631 of 2021
12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this
Court is conscious of the fact that the first claimant is the wife of the
deceased. The 2nd and 3rd claimants are the children of the deceased and
4th claimant is mother of the deceased. The family has lost their sole
breadwinner. However a bounty cannot be showered on the claimants.
More so when the claim is only for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, the Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.28,76,884/-
13. The deceased was working as Ex-Service Man (Havildhar,
Indian Army) and Ticket Collector at Paranur Tollgate, Chengalpattu and
was earning Rs.15,387 and got pension of Rs.7,068/-. Hence, the
Tribunal fixed a monthly income at Rs.22,455/- and his salary certificate,
viz., Ex.P17 Wage Slip, Ex.P11 Pension Payment order and Ex.P12-
Pension payment Corrigendum has been produced to prove his income
and there is no dispute regarding the salary of the deceased. Based on
the evidence, the monthly income of the deceased was fixed by the
Tribunal at Rs.22,455/- and after deducting 1/4th amount of Rs.5614/-
towards his personal expenses, monthly income was fixed at (Rs.16839
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
x 12 = Rs.2,02,028/- per annum) and loss of income has been arrived at
Rs.48,000 x 13= Rs.26,26,884/-. But we are of the view that fixing
Rs.15,000/- as monthly income of the deceased would be reasonable.
Insofar as the future prospects is concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded
adequate amount to the claimants and it requires modification. This
Court awarded additional amount for future prospects and considering
the age of the deceased was 46 years, 25% future prospects has to be
taken into account. The sum awarded by the Tribunal is modified by this
Court is as follows:
Heads Amount awarded Amount
by the Tribunal modified by this
(Rs.) Court (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 26,26,884 21,93,750
(22,455 - 5463 (1/4th
personal expenses) =
16839 * 12 *13)
(15,000+25%*12*13-1/4)
Loss of consortium 1,00,000 40,000
Loss of filial consortium - 1,20,000
Funeral expenses 25,000 15,000
Transport expenses - 15000
Loss of love and affection 1,25,000 -
Total Compensation 28,76,884 23,83,750
14. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal at a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
Rs.28,76,884/- is reduced to a sum of Rs.23,83,750/-. With the above
modification, the CMA No.631 of 2021 is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
modified award passed by this Court, with interest at 7.5% p.a. and costs,
before 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. The apportionment granted by the Tribunal shall remain intact.
On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the same
to the claimant's bank account through RTGS within one week thereon.
CMA No. 1335 of 2021
16. On a perusal of the Judgment of the Court below, it is observed
that the deceased was doing business and was earning Rs.25,000/- per
month. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.12,000/-. It is also
observed that the Tribunal has determined the annual loss of income by
applying the correct multiplier of 16 for 35 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
11 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and proper,
which called for no interference.
17. In view of the above facts and reasonings, this Court has no
hesitation in confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly,
the CMA No.1355 of 2021 is dismissed by confirming the award passed
by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
18. The appellant/Insruance Company is directed to deposit the
entire award amount, in respect of above Appeal as per the award passed
by this Court, with interest at 7.5% p.a. and costs, before 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 same to the
claimant's bank account through RTGS within one week thereon.
[R.P.S., J] [S.K.,J]
19.04.2021
lpp
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
12 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Tiruvallur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
13 / 14
CMA Nos.631 & 1355/2019
R.SUBBIAH, J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
lpp
C.M.A. Nos.631 and 1355 of 2021
and
CMP Nos. 3860 and 6976 of 2021
19.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
14 / 14
