M/S. Reliance General Insurance ... vs P.Poongavanam
2021 Latest Caselaw 24926 Mad

                                                                                       CMA No.565 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 17.12.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                                     CMA No.565 of 2021
                                                            And
                                                    C.M.P.No. 3531 of 2021

                     M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited.,
                     Reliance House, No.6,
                     Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
                     Chennai – 600 034.                                     ... 2nd
                     Respondent/Appellant

                                                             Vs

                     1.           P.Poongavanam

                     2.           M.Palanivel

                     3.           P.Vijayashanthi                 ... Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 3

                     4.           A.Theravaraj                    ... 1st Respondent/4th Respondent


                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.
                     Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 01.11.2019 made in
                     M.C.O.P.No. 328 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
                     Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2, Chennai.



                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    CMA No.565 of 2021

                                           For Appellant       : Mr. Arunkumar

                                           For RR 1 to 3       : M/s. Ramya V. Rao

                                           For 4th Respondent : No appearance

                                                    JUDGMENT

Since the Insurance Company is not disputing the liability, notice

to the fourth respondent is deemed unnecessary.

2. The Insurance company is on appeal questioning the award of a

sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Valliappan in a

Motor Accident. Claimants, who are the parents and sister of the deceased

lodged a claim seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- contending that

Valliappan died due to the accident when the Tipper Lorry bearing TN 22-

BS-0569 was driven in the reverse direction by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner. Claiming that the petitioners have lost both financial and

moral support because of the death, they sought for compensation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.565 of 2021

3. This is resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the

accident did not happen in the manner suggested by the claimants. The

Insurance Company also objected to the quantum of compensation claimed

and denied the existence of insurance.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant was examined as PW-2.

Exs. P-1 to P-7 were marked. The respondent Insurance Company did not

let in either oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal on a consideration

of the evidence on record concluded that it was the negligence of the lorry

driver which caused the accident and as the insurer the appellant/Insurance

Company is liable to pay compensation.

5. On the quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.12,500/- adding 40% future prospectus and arrived at a

monthly income of Rs.17,500/-, deducting 50% for personal expenses,

applying multiplier of '18', the Tribunal arrived at the total loss of

dependency at Rs.8,90,000/-. A sum of Rs.80,000/- was granted towards

loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.565 of 2021

expenses. Thus the total compensation arrived at by the Tribunal was

Rs.20,00,000/-.

6. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and

M/s. Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

7. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side since the

Tribunal as taken the monthly income of Rs.12,500/-. The deceased was

aged about 18 years and three months at the time of accident and

considering the fact that the accident had taken place on 17.11.2015. Mr.

Arun Kumar, learned counsel would further submit that the notional

provisional income of Rs.12,500/- is on the higher side. According to him,

in the absence of any other evidence, the Tribunal should have taken only

Rs.10,000/-. In view of the absence of any evidence on the side of the

Insurance Company, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is

unable to canvass the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal on the

question of negligence.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.565 of 2021

8. M/s. Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal has applied the

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 9Sarla Verma &

Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another] reported in [2009 4

MLJ SC 997] and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and others reported in [2017 MACD 137], and fixed the pecuniary

loss at Rs.8,90,000/- and as such there is no need for interference by this

Court on the quantum of compensation.

9. I have considered the rival submission.

10. The deceased was pursuing second year Diploma in

Electronics in a Polytechnic. He was also the only son of the claimants 1

and 2. Therefore, this Court has to take a liberal view on the compensation.

No doubt loss of son cannot be compensated monetarily at the same time,

the Court has to balance between the loss and the uncertainties of life.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.565 of 2021

11. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the monthly

notional income could be fixed at Rs.11,000/- while confirming the

compensation granted on the other heads. If the monthly notional income is

fixed at Rs.11,000/- and 40% is adopted future prospectus, the monthly

income would come to Rs.15,400/-, deducting half towards his personal

expenses and applying multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency would

come to Rs.16,63,200/-. Adding to that the other conventional damages at

Rs.1,10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the total compensation awarded

would come to Rs.17,73,200/- which is rounded of to Rs.17,75,000/-.

12. The Insurance Company is required to deposit the remaining

amount as per the award with 7.5% interest within a period of six weeks

from today. The Tribunal has apportioned the compensation equally among

the parents, the said apportionment will stand. On such deposit, the parents

are permitted to withdraw the entire amount so deposited by the Insurance

Company including the deposit made pursuant to the interim order with

accrued interest.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.565 of 2021

13. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17.12.2021

Index:Yes / No Speaking / Non-Speaking order vsg

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Court NO.2), Chennai.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.565 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

vsg

CMA No.565 of 2021 And C.M.P.No. 3531 of 2021

17.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis