Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Tamilvaanan on 2 December, 2021
CMA No.1292 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.M.A.No.1292 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.9149 of 2020
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Silingi Building, 4th Floor,
No.134, Greams Road,
Chennai - 600 006. ... Appellant
Vs
1.Tamilvaanan
2.T. Chandra
3.Vijayarekha
4.Nithya
5.K. Sekar ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 08.11.2019 made in
M.C.O.P.No.6579 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Special Sub Court-2/Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1292 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr. D. Bhaskaran
For Respondents : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, for R1 to 4
*********
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company challenges the award of Rs.19,66,400/-
as compensation, for the death of Muthukumaran aged 29 years, in the
motor accident that occurred on 27.08.2016.
2. According to the claimants, the deceased was riding his
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-18-AZ-1089 and proceeding towards
Mayilai Ranganatan Street. The driver of the auto bearing Reg.No.TN-09-
AM-9460, which was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd
respondent, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, in opposite
direction and hit against the deceased. As a result of the impact, the
deceased was thrown off the motorcycle and sustained fatal injuries.
3. The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the
accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimants. It was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1292 of 2020
the further contention that the deceased himself had contributed to the motor
accident. It was also contended that the driver of the auto did not have a
valid driving license and the owner/ 1st respondent allowed the driver to
drive the auto inspite of the knowledge of the fact that he has no license.
The monthly income claimed at Rs.20,000/- was also excessive. To sum up,
the Insurance Company contend that the quantum of compensation claimed
is very high and is not in proposition to the loss that would have been
caused by the accident.
4. Before the Tribunal, father of the deceased was examined as
PW1, one Manivannan, eye witness to the accident was examined as PW2
and one Balakrishnan, with whom the deceased was working as a driver was
examined as PW3. Exs.C1 to C21 were marked. The Insurance Company on
its side examined one Manikandan, Assistant in the Regional Transport
Office as RW1 and one Senthilvel, its employee as RW2. Exs.R1 to R6
were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1292 of 2020
5. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal
concluded that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the auto bearing Reg.No.TN-09-AM-9460 owned by
the 1st respondent. The Tribunal fixed the quantum of compensation at
Rs.19,66,400/- under the following heads:-
Loss of dependency - Rs.18,56,400/-
Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs.15,000/-
Loss of love and affection - Rs.80,000/-
--------------------
Total - Rs.19,66,400/-
---------------------
6. Terming the said compensation as excessive, the Insurance
Company has come up with this appeal.
7. I have heard Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company and Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents/ claimants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1292 of 2020
8. Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company would vehemently contend that having disbelieved the evidence,
regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought not to have
adopted Inflation Index to fix the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.13,000/-. He would further contend that because of fixing of the monthly
income at Rs.13,000/-, the Tribunal granted a higher compensation. He
would also submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself had not adopted
fixing of monthly income based on Inflation Index for a cleaner in Syed
Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company reported
in 2014 (1) TNMAC 459. According to Mr.D.Bhaskaran, the Tribunal was
therefore in error in adopting Inflation Index for fixing the monthly income
of the driver. On the other heads of compensation, Mr.D.Bhaskaran, has no
quarrel. It is also seen that the Tribunal has awarded pay and recovery since
the driver of the auto did not possess a valid license.
9. Contending contra Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel
appearing for the claimants would submit that even assuming that adoption
of Inflation Index for fixing the monthly income is incorrect, the quantum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1292 of 2020
monthly income arrived at Rs.13,000/- for a driver is just and reasonable
and does call for interference at the hands of this Court.
10. The accident had occurred on 27.08.2016. Considering the
period of accident and the fact that the deceased had a valid driving license
and was working as a driver, fixing income at Rs.13,000/- per month does
not appear to be on the higher side. The Tribunal has adopted 40% increase
for future prospects and had deducted 50% towards personal expenses. I do
not see any illegality or irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal
in arriving at the loss of dependency.
12. Mr.D.Bhaskaran, is also unable to point out any error on the
quantum. Once I conclude that the Tribunal cannot be faulted with for
fixing monthly income at Rs.13,000/- de hors the method adopted by it, to
reach the said figure, I do not think, I could interfere with the award.
13. In view of the above, I do not think there is any scope for
reducing the amount awarded. Hence, the appeal fails and it is accordingly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1292 of 2020
dismissed. It is made clear that pay and recovery granted by the Tribunal
will be available to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the balance amount within a period of four (4) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On such deposit the
claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.12.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : No
Speaking order
dsa
To
The Special Sub Court-2/ Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1292 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
C.M.A.No.1292 of 2020
02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
