Madras High Court
The Manager vs V.Rajalakshmi on 1 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :01.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
C.M.A(MD)No.1035 of 2013
and
MP(MD)No.2 of 2013
The Manager,
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.28 (Old No.195),
1st and 2nd Floor,
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai. : Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
1.V.Rajalakshmi
2.V.Laxmikandh
3.V.Srividhya
4.S.Rajamani : R1 to R4/Claimants
5.M.Kumar : R5/1st Respondent
6.M.Ayyappan
7.The Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
930, Sathy Road,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. : R6 and R7/R3 and R4
(R6 and R7 are given up and
no notice be served on them)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated
31.10.2011 made in MCOP No.618 of 2006 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Karur.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Appellant : Mr.s.Srinivasa Raghavan
For R1 to R4 : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
For 5th Respondent : No appearance
For R6 and R7 : Given up
JUDGMENT
(Thro' VC)
Challenge made in this appeal is to the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Karur, in MCOP
No.618 of 2006, dated 31.10.2011.
2.The brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2006 at about
2.30 am, the deceased Vijayaraghavan was travelling in a Van
TN-33-C-4870 along with Ravi and one Muthukrishnan and when
the Van proceeding near Muthusolipalayam on Karur-Kovai main
road, the Lorry TN-02-R-5712 came in a rash and negligent manner
and hit against the Van. In the accident, the deceased
Vijayaraghavan sustained serious head injuries and fracture all
over the body and died on the spot, while others sustained injuries.
The claimants, being the wife, son, daughter and mother of the
deceased, sought compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on the ground that
the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3.The claimants have stated that at the time of the accident,
the age of the deceased was 57 and he was working as a
Automobile Mechanic-cum-Temple Sashthiri and was earning Rs.
15,000/- per month. A criminal case in Crime No.114 of 2006 was
registered against the driver of the offending vehicle by Paramathi
Police.
4.The claim was opposed by the appellant as well as the 7th
respondent herein before the tribunal disputing the manner of
accident and their liability to pay compensation.
5.The Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary
evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending
vehicle was responsible for the accident and awarded
compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. Aggrieved
by the award of the tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company is
before this court.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7.The manner of the accident and the finding on negligence
are not in dispute and the appeal is confined only to quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8.Even though so many grounds were raised in the grounds of
appeal, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the tribunal has not applied correct multiplier and
the quantum of award is on the higher side, so the quantum is to be
reduced. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents 1 to 4/claimants submitted that the award is
reasonable, which does not warrant any interference of this court.
.
9.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased
was doing Automobile work and also temple Poosari work and he
was 57 years old at the time of accident. Since no reliable
document has been produced to prove the income of the deceased,
the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-
and after deducting 2/3rd towards personal expenses and by
applying multiplier '9', awarded Rs.3,24,000/- towards loss of
income. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral
expenses; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the
http://www.judis.nic.in
claimants 1 to 4 and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. In
total, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,84,000/- together with
interest @ 7.5% p.a. This court is of the considered opinion that
the award of the tribunal, based on the evidence is reasonable and
warrants no interference of this court and the same is confirmed.
10.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed,
confirming the award of the tribunal. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
District Court, Karur.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
T.KRISHNAVALLI.J.,
er
C.M.A(MD)No.1035 of 2013
01.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
