Madras High Court
M/S.Reliance General Insurance ... vs N. Shanthi on 8 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.205 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A. No.205 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.1431 of 2021
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Old No.15, New No.29, 3rd Floor,
North Usman Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
Now at Reliance House, No.6,
6th Floor, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.N. Shanthi
2.S. Krishnaveni .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2020, made
in M.C.O.P. No.2755 of 2016, on the file of the Special Sub Court No.2,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
___
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.205 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2020, made
in M.C.O.P. No.2755 of 2016, on the file of the Special Sub Court No.2,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.2755 of 2016, on
the file of the Special Sub Court No.2, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Chennai. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a
sum of Rs.41,50,000/- as compensation for the death of her son viz., Arun
who died in the accident that took place on 11.02.2016.
3.According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, while the
deceased Arun was returning home from Taramani after work, in his
Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-14-D-2110, in North-South direction
at Velacherry main road, near Kamakoti Nagar junction at Pallikaranai, driver
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.205 of 2021
of a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN-11-F-8304 belonging to the 2nd
respondent drove the same in a wrong direction from South to North at rash
and negligent manner, dashed on the Motorcycle and caused the accident. In
the accident, the deceased succumbed to fatal injuries. The accident occurred
only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Tata Sumo belonging
to the 2nd respondent and hence, filed the present claim petition claiming
compensation against the 2nd respondent as owner and appellant as insurer of
the offending vehicle.
4.The 2nd respondent, owner of the Tata Sumo, remained exparte before
the Tribunal.
5.The appellant-Insurance Company, filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition.
According to the appellant, at the time of accident, the driver of the Tata
Sumo did not possess valid driving license to ply the vehicle. The 1st
respondent has to prove the validity of vehicular records, driving license of
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.205 of 2021
the driver of the Tata Sumo and insurance coverage at the time of accident. In
any event, the 1st respondent has to prove the age, avocation and income of
the deceased, to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and
marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. The appellant did not let in any oral
and documentary evidence.
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by driver of the Tata Sumo belonging to the 2nd respondent and
directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of
Rs.23,38,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.
8.Challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in
the award dated 08.01.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.2755 of 2016, the
appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.205 of 2021
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company
contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of RS.23,38,000/- as
compensation when the 1st respondent failed to prove the loss of income. The
Tribunal having rejected Exs.P2 to P4 and evidence of P.W.1, erred in fixing
the sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The
Tribunal ought to have considered the global scenario, particularly in India
where there is no employment or under employment for all such academic
acquired persons like the deceased. The Tribunal ought not to have granted
40% enhancement towards future prospects. The total compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the
Tribunal.
10.Heard through video conference the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the materials available on
record.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.205 of 2021
11.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the 1st
respondent has claimed that the deceased was working as a Test Engineer at
Ascendant Software Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd., and was earning a sum of
Rs.26,000/- per month. To prove the same, she examined herself as P.W.1 and
marked Ex.P2 – identity card and Exs.P3 & P4 - appointment orders of the
deceased. In the absence of salary certificate and bank statements of the
deceased being produced by the 1st respondent, considering the education
qualification of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month as notional income. The accident is of the year 2016. Considering the
date of accident and educational qualification of the deceased, the monthly
income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The Tribunal considering
Ex.P11-driving license of the deceased, fixed the age of the deceased as 25
years and rightly granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The
deceased was bachelor at the time of accident. Hence, deducting 50% towards
personal expenses and applying multiplier '18', awarded compensation
towards loss of dependency. The same is in order. In addition to awarding
compensation towards loss of dependency, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.205 of 2021
sum of Rs.70,000/-, under the conventional heads. There is no error in the
award of the Tribunal and hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is not interfered with.
12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.23,38,000/- together with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is
confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award
amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.2755 of 2016. On such deposit, the 1st
respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount, determined by the
Tribunal, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any,
already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
08.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
gsa
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.205 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
To
1.The Special Subordinate Judge-II,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.M.A. No.205 of 2021
08.02.2021
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
