Madras High Court
Tmt.Mekala vs Ayyandurai on 10 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.169/2018&3393/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2021
CORAM
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.Nos.169 of 2018 & 3393 of 2019
and
CMP.No.2068 of 2018
Sundaram (died)
1. Tmt.Mekala
W/o. Sundaram
2. Tmt.Sudha
D/o. Sundaram
3. S.Kumaresan
S/o. Sundaram ..Appellants/Petitioners in
CMA.No.3393/2019
1. Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance
Co., Ltd.,
2nd Floor, No.3, Kadar Nawaskhan Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 6. ..Appellant/Second Respondent
in CMA.No.169/2018
Page 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.169/2018&3393/2019
Vs.
1. Ayyandurai
S/o. Ayyannan
2. Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance
Co., Ltd.,
2nd Floor, No.3, Kadar Nawaskhan Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 6. ..Respondents/Respondents in
CMA.No.3393/2019
1. Sundaram (died)
2. Ayyandhurai
S/o. Ayyannan
3. Tmt.Mekala
W/o. Sundaram
4. Tmt.Sudha
D/o. Sundaram
5. S.Kumaresan
S/o. Sundaram
(RR3 to 5 brought on record of the
Lrs of the deceased R1 viz., Sundaram
vide Court Order dated 04.02.2021 made in
CMP.Nos.1634, 1636 & 1637/2021
in CMA.169/2018)
..Respondents/Petitioners in
CMA.No.169/2018
Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree
dated 09.10.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.203 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Rasipuram.
Page 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.169/2018&3393/2019
For Appellant in
CMA.No.3393/2019 ::Mr.Thangaraju C
For Appellant in
CMA.No.169/2018 ::Mr.G.Vasudevan
For Respondents in
CMA.No.3393/2019 ::Ex-Parte – R1
Mr.G.Vasudevan for R2
For Respondents in
CMA.No.169/2018 ::Mr.Thangaraju C for R3 to R5
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by SATHI KUMAR
SUKUMARA KURUP,J.)
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against the
Judgment and Decree dated 09.10.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.203 of 2013
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Rasipuram.
2. CMA.No.169 of 2018 filed by Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance
Company seeking to set aside the award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Rasipuram. CMA. No. 3393 of 2019 was filed by the legal
heirs of the Claimant/Sundaram seeking enhancement of the award passed
by the Tribunal.
Page 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.169/2018&3393/2019
3. When CMA. No.169 of 2018 filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company was taken up for hearing on 25.01.2021, it was brought to the
notice of this Court that the claimant-Sundaram died on 14.05.2017, even
before the award was passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, his legal heirs were
impleaded as respondents/claimants in CMA.No.169 of 2018. That apart,
the legal heirs of the deceased/claimant themselves have filed an
independent appeal in CMA.No.3393 of 2019, seeking enhancement of the
compensation. As the appeals arise out of the same award passed by the
Tribunal, they are taken up for disposal together.
4. The claim petition in MCOP.No.203 of 2013 was filed by the
injured/Sundaram seeking compensation for partial permanent disability
suffered by him in the accident. After due enquiry, the Tribunal, on
assessment of the evidence, had awarded a sum of Rs.11,33,000/- as
compensation.
5. Since the claimant died before the award was passed by the
Tribunal, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant-insurance company
Page 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.169/2018&3393/2019
that after the death of the original claimant, if at all, the Tribunal ought to
have awarded compensation for the medical expenses incurred by the
claimant and the amount awarded under other heads are legally untenable
inasmuch as the injuries are per se personal in nature. After the death of the
claimant, his legal heirs cannot be permitted to prosecute this appeal
seeking enhancement.
6. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company cannot be countenanced. The claim petition was filed by the
deceased- claimant on 29.04.2013 for the injuries suffered by the deceased
claimant in the accident that had taken place on 07.09.2011. Before the
Tribunal, the deceased claimant himself has deposed evidence as PW1 along
with two other witnesses as PWs. 2 and 3 and all the witnesses were cross-
examined. Thereafter, just before the pronouncement of the judgment on
09.10.2017, the deceased-claimant died on 14.05.2017. It appears that the
death of the deceased was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and that
is the reason why, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal in
C.M.A. No. 168 of 2019 in the name of the claimant, who died even before
Page 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.169/2018&3393/2019
the pronouncement of the award by the Tribunal. Ultimately, when CMA
No. 168 of 2019 was taken up for hearing on 25.01.201, it was brought to
the notice of this Court regarding the death of the claimant, who originally
filed MCOP No. 203 of 2013 before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, it
cannot be said that the claimant is only entitled for medical expenses
incurred by him after his death during the pendency of the claim petition.
The argument of the counsel for the appellant is, therefore, rejected. At the
same time, we are also of the view that after the death of the deceased-
claimant, his legal heirs are not entitled to maintain a separate appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation. In effect, we hold that the appeal
filed by the legal heirs of the deceased claimant is not maintainable.
7. As regards the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company in
C.M.A. No.169 of 2018, on perusal of the records, it is seen that the
claimant was 43 years at the time of accident. Due to the injuries sustained
in the accident, he was admitted in the Salem Government Hospital for a
period of 40 days. During his hospitalization, his both legs were amputated
beyond his thigh. P.W.2, the Doctor who was examined the Tribunal and
Page 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.169/2018&3393/2019
certified that the disability is functional disability and he assessed it had
100%. The Doctor also stated that the appellant could not discharge his
normal duties as before and he is the dependant of others. The Tribunal also
noticed that the appellant/claimant was owning the tractor and engaged in
transportation of some goods through his tractor. It is also brought on
record that the appellant was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and that such
income, he was maintaining his family considering of his wife and two
children, after the accident the claimant has totally lost his earning capacity.
Taking into account, all the above factors, the Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.11,33,000/- by referring to multiplier method for such purpose, the
Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month
notionally. In our opinion, the sum of Rs.6,000/- per month fixed as income
of the deceased/claimant is just and reasonable. The Tribunal also awarded
a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.15,000/- towards
Extra Nourishment, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/-
towards transportation. The award of these amounts by the Tribunal is very
reasonable and fair and we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
Similarly we also do not find any reason to enhancement of the said amount,
Page 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.169/2018&3393/2019
the appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased/claimant.
Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. The Insurance Company
is directed to deposit the total compensation of Rs.11,33,000/- as
determined by the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adjusting the amount, if any, already
deposited. On such deposit, the first appellant/claimant is permitted to
withdraw a sum of Rs.6,33,000/- and the second and third
appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each, in
accordance with law, less the amount if any already withdrawn by them.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No Costs.
(R.P.S.J.) (S.S.K.J.)
dh 10.02.2021
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Rasipuram.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
Page 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.169/2018&3393/2019
R.SUBBIAH, J.
AND
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
dh
C.M.A.Nos.3393 of 2019 & 169 of 2018
and
CMP.2068 of 2018
10.02.2021
Page 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
