Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. vs Savithri on 19 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.4459 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.4459 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.25287 of 2019
(Through Video Conferencing)
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
22C, Siva Complex,
Saradha College Main Road,
Fairlands, Salem 636 016. ... Appellant
vs.
1.Savithri
2.Deepa
3.Sellathal
4.Subramaniya Gounder
5.Chettinadu Builders Pvt.Ltd.,
Rani Seethai Hall, 603,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2017
made in M.C.O.P.No.2914 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (1 Additional District Judge) Salem.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 8
C.M.A.No.4459 of 2019
For Appellant : M/s.S.Arunkumar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.Sathishkumar for
Mr.C.Thangaraju
For R5 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
The appellant Insurance company is aggrieved by the impugned
Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (1 Additional District Judge) Salem in
M.C.O.P.No.2914 of 2015.
2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.22,09,000/- as compensation together with interest
at 7.5% per annum, from the date of the claim petition, till the date of
deposit, payable by the appellant Insurance Company to the 1 st to 4th
respondents/claimants who are the wife, the daughter, mother and the
father of the deceased S.Ramasamy.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 8
C.M.A.No.4459 of 2019
3. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Insurance Company has
filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ramasamy met
with an accident on 05.09.2015, while he was riding a Mini Door Auto
bearing Reg.No.TN.38.AE.6738 when a Concrete lorry bearing
Reg.No.TN.37.X.7836 belonging to the 5th respondent insured with the
appellant Insurance Company allegedly driven in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on
the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries and died in the hospital.
5. The 1st to 5th respondents filed a claim petition as his dependents
for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. After considering the evidence, the
Tribunal has awarded the aforesaid compensation of Rs.22,09,000/- as
compensation, to the claimants who are the 1st to 5th respondents herein.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company
submitted that the Tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future
prospects. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have added only
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 8
C.M.A.No.4459 of 2019
10% of the income towards future prospects of the deceased. He further
submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3 income of the
personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have deducted
1/4 income for personal expenses. Therefore, prayed for setting aside
the award of the Tribunal .
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st to 4th respondents
submitted that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different
heads are proper. He submits that the impugned order is well reasoned
and requires no interference. Hence he prays for dismissal ofsetting
aside the Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant and the 1st to 4th respondents and I have also
perused the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment and Decree
passed by the Tribunal.
9. It is seen from the records that the deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased ought to have been restricted to 1/4th of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 8
C.M.A.No.4459 of 2019
income and not 1/3rd of the income as was done by the Tribunal in terms
of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and
Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC
121,
10. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2015, this
Court is inclined to accept the notional income of the deceased as
Rs.13,500/- p.m. The Tribunal has also wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the
income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal
ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased
as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt)
and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6
SCC 12.
11. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16
SCC 680 , the Tribunal ought to have added future prospects at 10% to
the income of the deceased. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanuram @
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 8
C.M.A.No.4459 of 2019
Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : 2018 Online SC 1546,
thus the amount awarded towards loss of various consortium is to be
modified. The compensation awarded is therefore re-quantified as
follows:-
Sl. Amount Amount awarded Award
No Description awarded by the by this Court confirmed or
Tribunal (Rs.) enhanced or
(Rs.) granted or
reduced
1 Loss of dependency *Rs.15,84,000/- # Rs.14,70,150/- reduced
2 Medical expenses Rs. 5,40,000- Rs. 5,40,000/- Confirmed
3 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- ## Rs. 5,000/- Enhanced
4 Loss of consortium Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Confirmed
5 Loss of love and Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/- Enhanced
affection
Reduced by
Total Rs.22,09,000/- Rs.21,75,150/- a sum of
Rounded off to Rs.34,000/-
Rs.21,75,000/-
* (Rs.18,000 x 1/3x12x11)
# (Rs.13,500 + 10% x 12 – 1/4 x 11)
12. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the re-quantified amount of compensation of Rs.21,75,000/-
together with interest at 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date
of such deposit, less any amount already deposited, within a period of six
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 8
C.M.A.No.4459 of 2019
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
13. On such deposit, the 1st to 4th respondents are permitted to
withdraw their shares together with interest thereon and proportionate
costs as directed by the Tribunal, less any amount already withdrawn, by
filing suitable applications before the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed with
the above observations. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
19.04.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
kkd
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(1 Additional District Judge) Salem.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 7 of 8
C.M.A.No.4459 of 2019
C.SARAVANAN, J.
kkd
C.M.A.No.4459 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.25287 of 2019
19.04.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 8 of 8
