Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Abdul Jameel on 3 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2014
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
46, Moore Street, Regina Mansion
First floor, Chennai – 600 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Abdul Jameel
2. Mariam Beevi
3. Mallika Beevi ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
03.01.2012 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.238 of 2009 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Mannargudi.
For Appellant : M/s.M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2014
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the
liability, negligence and quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in
the award dated 03.01.2012 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.238 of 2009 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Mannargudi.
3. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.238 of 2009
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at
Mannargudi. The respondents 1 & 2 filed the above said claim petition,
claiming a sum of Rs.7,72,000/- as compensation for the death of their
daughter viz., Banu @ Ramzan Beevi, who died in the accident that took
place on 29.05.1999.
4. On 29.05.1999 at about 12:15 a.m., the claimants' daughter deceased
Banu @ Ramzan Beevi travelled from Chennai Air Port to Atthikadai Village
in TATA Sumo bearing Registration No.TN50 7567, suddenly an unknown
vehicle grazed the insured TATA Sumo on its right side by overtaking and
pushed the vehicle to the left side of the road into a fence causing fatal and
grievous injuries to the occupants of the car which resulted in the death of
three persons including the deceased Banu @ Ramzan Beevi. The driver of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2014
the said car died in the spot. The deceased Banu @ Ramzan Beevi was
working as a house maid at Singapore. She was the only bread winner of
whom the respondents 1 and 2 herein are dependants. At the time of accident,
the deceased was aged 27 years and thereby, earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per
month. Hence the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
driver of the car owned by 3rd respondent and directed the appellant to pay a
sum of Rs.6,60,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 and
thereafter recover from the third respondent.
6. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
in the award dated 03.01.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.238 of 2009, the
appellant has come out with the present appeal.
7. The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the claimants. According to the appellant,
the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2014
of the offending vehicle. The income of the deceased, whether the claimants
are the legal heirs and cause of death of the deceased are not proved. Even in
the FIR, it has been stated that only due to the negligent driving of the car
driver, the accident was taken place and no witness has been examined and
no documents have been marked which is highly doubtful and the averments
in the FIR are all fabricated one. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay
any compensation to the respondents 1 & 2. The respondents 1 & 2 have to
prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased by producing valid
documents. The respondents 1 & 2 have to prove that they are the legal heirs
of the deceased by producing valid legal heirship certificate. In any event, the
quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 & 2 are highly
excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent examined himself as P.W.1
and second respondent was examined as P.W.2 and one Anbalagan was
examined as P.W.3. and marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On the side
of the appellant/Insurance Company, Sankar was examined as R.W1 and one
Exhibit was marked and one Court side witness as C.W.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2014
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
Tribunal, in the absence of materials, erred in fixing a sum of Rs.3,000/- per
month as notional income of the deceased for a 27 years old girl. The
deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the Tribunal ought to
have deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and ought to
have applied multiplier “17” instead of “18” and prayed for setting aside the
award of the Tribunal.
10. The main ground is that the claimants have approached this Court
after eight years of accident and that in the FIR it has been stated that
unknown vehicle has grazed TATA Sumo on the right side and in the process
of over taking the vehicle to the left side of the road has caused fatal and
grevious injuries to the occupants of the car. It is further submitted that there
is no evidence more so documentary evidence to establish the accident and no
witness has been examined, which is highly doubtful and the averments in the
FIR have been made true.
11. Though notice has been served on the respondents and their names
have been printed in the cause list, there is no representation for them, either
in person or through counsel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2014
12. It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that their deceased
daughter was aged 27 years and was working as a maid at Singapore.
According to respondents 1 and 2, the deceased was earning a sum of
Rs.6,000/- per month. In the absence of any document, the Tribunal fixed a
sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The
deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident. As per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court,
[Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], the
Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the
deceased. In view of the above, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards
loss of dependency is modified to Rs.4,28,400/- {Rs.4,200/- [Rs.3,000/- +
Rs.1,200/- (40% of Rs.3,000/-)] X 12 X 17 X ½}. The Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards
transportation and Rs.6,000/- towards expectation of future long life of the
deceased. The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards love and
affection. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2014
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of dependency 6,48,000/- 4,28,400/- Reduced
2. Loss of love and - 20,000/- Enhanced
affection (1st and 2nd
respondents)
3. Transport charges 1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed
4. Funeral expenses 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
5. Expectation of Rs.6,000/- - Nil
future long life of
the deceased
6. Loss of estate - 5,000/- Enhanced
Total Rs.6,60,000/- Rs.4,59,400/- Reduced by
Rs.2,00,600/-
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.6,60,000/- is hereby reduced
to Rs.4,59,400/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant-Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the modified award amount now determined by this Court
along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within
a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to
the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.238 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge) at Mannargudi. On such deposit, the
respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2014
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
dpq
award amount now determined by this Court, as per the ratio of
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary
applications before the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance Company is
permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.
No.238 of 2009, if the award amount has already been deposited by them.
Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
03.08.2021
dpq
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Subordinate Court at Mannargudi.
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
