Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Vijayeswari on 3 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.2060 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.2060 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.11114 of 2021
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
15-A PLA Kanagu Towers, 11th Cross Main Road,
Thillai Nagar, Trichy-18. ... Appellant
Vs
1.Vijayeswari
2.Minor Ranjith Kumar
(Rep. by mother N.G.Vijayeswari)
3.Valliyammal
4.Krishna Kumar ..Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated
18.01.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.573 of 2014 by the Special Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, at Thiruppur.
For Appellant : M/s.C.Bhuvanasundari
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.)
The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the award
passed in MCOP No.573 of 2014 by the Special Motor Accident Claims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2060 of 2021
Tribunal, Tiruppur awarding compensation to the legal heirs of the
deceased Soundarrajan / respondents 1 to 3 herein.
2.The fact reveals that the husband of the 1st respondent,
namely Soundarrajan met with an accident on 26.03.2014, and while he
was driving the two wheeler along with one Aruchamy driven in
Palladam to Trichy road, near Swathy Milk farm, the car belonging to the
4th respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit
against the two wheeler, thereby the said Soundarrajan sustained
grievous injuries. Inspite of the treatment, he died on 04.12.2015. Due to
the negligent driving of the car by its driver, the said accident happened
and the vehicle was insured with the appellant / Insurance Company
herein. Considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal
fixed the negligence on the part of the car driver and fastened the liability
upon the appellant / Insurance Company with whom the said car was
insured. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has
preferred the appeal.
3.Heard M/s.C.Bhuvanasundari, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2060 of 2021
4.The question of law that arises for consideration in this
appeal is as to whether the Tribunal erroneously fixed the monthly
income of the deceased without considering any proper evidence?
5.At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellant / Insurance Company argued that there was no documentary
proof with regard to the source of income of the deceased, without which
the Tribunal, erroneously fixed Rs.11,000/- as monthly income. But, on
seeing the case, it is seen that the deceased Soundarrajan was owner
-cum- driver at the time of the accident. This fact is not denied by the
appellant by adducing any contra evidence before the Tribunal. Before
this forum, first time, the appellant / Insurance Company raised such an
objection, which is not maintainable in law, for the reason that the
grounds on which they relied as their defence, should be specifically
pleaded and evidence should be adduced, without which, such objection
cannot be raised at the appellate stage.
6.But the claimants proved the source of income of the
deceased, through the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P7, based upon which,
the Tribunal fixed Rs.11,000/- as the monthly income, which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2060 of 2021
sustainable in law. Another objection raised by the appellant / Insurance
Company is that the claimants have not proved that death had occurred
due to the injuries sustained in the accident, nor they produced the Post
Moterm certificate. Without considering this aspect, the Tribunal
erroneously passed the award as if the said Soundarrajan died due to the
injuries sustained in the said accident.
7.As discussed above, there was no evidence on the side of the
Insurance Company, before the Tribunal, to this effect. On the other
hand, the claimants produced the medical records marked as Ex.P2 and
P3. The facts also reveal that the deceased Soundarrajan was bed-ridden
due to the grievous injuries sustained in the said accident, but he was
discharged at Coma stage due to the head injury and the same was also
proved through discharge summary, which is sufficient to conclude that
due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, the said Soundarrajan
died.
8.Hence, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation in favour
of the claimants which needs no interference by this Court. Hence the
award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. However, liberty is granted to
the claimants to prefer an appeal, if they want any enhancement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2060 of 2021
9.The Tribunal awarded 7.5 % interest from the date of
petition dated 03.06.2014 till the date of deposit and the same is hereby
confirmed. Therefore, the award amount of Rs.59,66,956/- with 7.5%
interest is a very reasonable and just compensation and the same does not
require any interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal fails and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
10.The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount
as per the award of the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, after
deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such
deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective
shares of the Respondents through RTGS within a period of one week,
except the share of the 2nd Respondent/minor, which shall be deposited
in any one of the Nationalized Banks in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit
till they attain majority and the interest accrued in the Fixed Deposit
Scheme shall be withdrawn by the 1st respondent (Mother). The
proportion of allocation of shares adopted by the Tribunal, shall stand
confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2060 of 2021
11. Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
and the award passed by the Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tiruppur in MCOP.No.573 of 2014 is confirmed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12.Call the matter after four weeks to file an affidavit by the
appellant / Insurance Company for having complied with the order
passed by this Court, failing which Chairman-cum-Managing Director
and Chief Financial Officer-cum-Chief Accounts Officer of the appellant
/ Insurance Company shall appear before this Court.
(N.K.K.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
03.08.2021
rri
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking order: Yes
To
1.The Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Thiruppur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2060 of 2021
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
C.M.A.No.2060 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.11114 of 2021
03.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
