The Branch Manager vs Lakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2867 Mad

                                                       1

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED :08.02.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

                                          C.M.A(MD)No.177 of 2015
                                                   and
                                            MP(MD)No.1 of 2015

                      The Branch Manager,
                      Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
                      2nd Floor, Sri Vijay Complex,
                      Theni Post, Theni Taluk,
                      Theni District.                   : Appellant/2nd Respondent

                                                     Vs.

                      1.Lakshmi
                      2.Vijayarani
                      3.Senthilkumar                       : R1 to R3/Petitioners 1 to 3
                      4.S.Samydass                         : R4/ 1st Respondent

                             PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
                      Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated
                      11.10.2012 made in MCOP No.45 of 2012 on the file of Motor
                      Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Theni.


                                  For Appellant        : Mr.C.Ramachandran

                                  For Respondents      : No appearance




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                       2

                                                JUDGMENT

Challenge made in this appeal is to the award passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Theni, in

MCOP No.45 of 2012, dated 11.10.2012.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 11.12.2011, the

deceased Ponmaran and his wife Lakshmi went to Cumbum to take

part in the procession in respect of Mullai Periyar dispute at

Cumbum. The deceased and his wife went in a motor cycle TN-58-

H-8142. They were proceeding from K.K Patti to Cumbum. When

the deceased turned to Cumbum Bus Stand road, the driver of the

tractor TN-60-E-0464 along with trailor coming on the back, drove

it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the motor cycle.

Due to it, both of them fell down and the deceased Ponmaran

sustained injuries on the back side of the head and left shoulder

and his wife Lakshmi also sustained injuries on the head and right

shoulder. They were taken to Government Hospital, Cumbum,

however, the deceased Ponmaran died in the hospital itself. The

claimants, being the wife, daughter and son of the deceased filed a

claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on the

ground that the driver of the tractor 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 55 and he was doing Grains business

and agricultural works and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. A

criminal case in Crime No.394 of 2011 was registered against the

driver of the Tractor by Cumbum North Police.

4.The claim was opposed by the appellant Insurance

Company 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 tractor was

responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.

3,51,000/- together with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. Aggrieved by the

award of the tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company is before

this court.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

perused the materials available on record. There is no

representation on behalf of the respondents.

http://www.judis.nic.in

7.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 quantum of award is on the higher side, so the

quantum is to be reduced.

8.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.

.

9.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased

was 55 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 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and

by applying multiplier '9', awarded Rs.3,24,000/- towards loss of

dependency. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,000/- towards loss

of consortium and loss of love and affection, Rs,14,000/- towards

loss of consortium to the claimants 2 and 3 and Rs.5,000/- towards

funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,51,000/-

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

http://www.judis.nic.in

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. .

08.02.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

To

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ The Principal District Court, Madurai.

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.177 of 2015

08.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in