Madras High Court
Shri Ram General Ins.Co.Ltd vs Mrs.Mary on 5 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.10745 of 2021
Shri Ram General Ins.Co.Ltd.,
No.5, Ramachandra Street,
Seevaram, Perungudi,
Chennai – 96. ... Appellant
Vs
1.Mrs.Mary
2.Jayashree, Minor rep. By her mother
and next friend Mrs.Mary
3.Mrs.Violet
4.Nagooran
5.Senthil Kumar ...Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated
27.08.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.4103 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal - II, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
For Appellant : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari.
For Respondents : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J)
The appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company
aggrieved by the fastening of liability on the Insurance Company holding
that the insured vehicle was negligent and against the quantum of
compensation of Rs.41,25,000/- awarded to the Respondents 1 to 4.
2.The case of the Respondents is that on 13.05.2015, the victim
was driving Tanker lorry near melavalam pettai and hit a container lorry
insured with the Appellant which was parked without any signal or
indicator and parking light. In the accident, the victim / driver of the
Tanker lorry sustained grievous injuries and later, he died. On contest,
the Tribunal found that the accident occurred, since the insured vehicle
was parked without any signal or indicator and parking light and fastened
the liability on the Insurance Company and awarded a sum of
Rs.41,25,000/- to the Respondents and 90% of the said amount to be paid
by the Appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
3.Heard Ms.Bhuvanasundari, learned Counsel for the Appellant
and Mr.Varadha Kamaraj, Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4.
4.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that victim
alone was responsible for the accident as he dashed against the parked
vehicle and therefore, there cannot be any negligence on the part of the
insured vehicle. The Evidence of RW1 was totally ignored by the
Tribunal. Therefore, she pleads for setting aside the finding regarding
negligence. Further, she would submit that the quantum of compensation
is on the higher side and contrary to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of “National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay
Sethi” in SLP (Civil) No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2017 reported in
“2017 ACJ 2700”, as Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards loss of
consortium and also awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards Parental consortium
and filial consortium in spite of awarding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards
loss of love and affection which itself is on the higher side. That apart
50% was added towards future prospects which is in contrary to the said
Judgment since only 40% is required to be added towards future
prospects. However, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4
supported the award of the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
5.A perusal of the records would show that Tribunal factually
found that the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the
container lorry. It is seen that the accident occurred at about 3'O clock
and in the darkness, the insured vehicle was parked without any signal or
parking light and hence, it would not be possible for the victim to view
the said vehicle. Therefore, without noting the same, the victim dashed
the vehicle and moreover, Ex.P.1 viz., First Information Report was filed
against the driver of the parked vehicle. In view of the above, this Court
finds that the accident occurred because of the negligent parking of the
container lorry on the road.
6.That apart, there is no contrary evidence except RW1's evidence
who is only a legal advisor and is not an eye witness. Therefore, the
evidence of PW2, eye witness is not contradicted by any of the evidence
adduced by the Appellant. Therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal
is confirmed and challenge to the said finding is rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
7.With regard to the quantum of compensation, the arguments of
the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has force as the Tribunal added
50% towards future prospects whereas, 40% alone has to be added
towards future prospects as per the above cited Judgment as the victim is
in private employment and aged about 24 years. Therefore, 50%
awarded towards future prospects is reduced to 40% and hence, the
monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.21,000/-. [Rs.15,000/- +
40% (Rs.6,000/-)]. Therefore, the Annual income would be Rs.21,000 X
12 = Rs.2,52,000/-. Further, rightly ¼th has been deducted as the
dependants of the deceased are 4 and right multiplier of '18' has been
applied and the same cannot be found fault with. Hence, the loss of
dependency comes about Rs.2,52,000 – ¼ (Rs.63,000) X 18 =
Rs.34,02,000/-.
8.As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant,
Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium is contrary to the
above said Judgment and the same is reduced to Rs.40,000/-. Further,
Rs.1,50,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection towards the
Respondents 2 to 4 is on the higher side and the same is reduced to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
Rs.1,20,000/-. When already an amount was awarded towards Loss of
Love and Affection, there is no question of awarding amount under the
heads of parental consortium and filial consortium and therefore,
Rs.2,00,000/- awarded under the said heads are set aside.
9.Further, Rs.15,000/- each awarded towards medical expenses and
funeral expenses are justified and the same are confirmed. However, it is
seen that no amount was awarded towards transportation and loss of
estate. Therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards
transportation and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards Loss of
Estate. In view of the categorical findings given by this Court, 10% of
negligence fastened on the victim is set aside, since the accident has been
occurred due to the negligent parking of the insured vehicle on the road
at about 3'O clock in the darkness without any signal or indicator or
parking light. Further, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of
7.5% is confirmed. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
S.No. Heads Amount (in Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency Rs.34,02,000/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
3. Loss of Love and Affection Rs.1,20,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs.15,000/-
5. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
6. Transportation Rs.15,000/-
7. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.36,22,000/-
10.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
and the amount awarded by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.41,25,000/- is
reduced to Rs.36,22,000/-. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.The First Respondent is entitled for a sum of Rs.9,22,000/-, the
Second Respondent is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, the Third
Respondent is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the Fourth
Respondent is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
12.The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount as
per the Judgment of this Court along with interest and costs after
deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
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 two weeks
there of, except the share of the 2nd Respondent/minor, which shall be
deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks in interest bearing Fixed
Deposit till she attain majority and the 1st Respondent is permitted to
withdraw interest accruing on such deposit once in every three months.
(N.K.K.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
05.08.2021
ay
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
In the II Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
ay
C.M.A.No.1995 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.10745 of 2021
Dated: 05.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
