Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs K.Usharani on 17 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.241 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA.No.241 of 2012
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
39, Greams Road, Silinghi Building,
Chennai – 600006. ... Appellant
..vs..
1.K.Usharani
W/o. P.S.Kuganesan
2.P.S.Kuganesan (Died)
S/o.Selvaraj
3.K.Subramanian
4.S.K.Mukesh
S/o.P.S.Kuganesan
5.S.K.Harish Kanna (Minor)
S/o. P.S.Kuganesan
6.S.Pattammal
S/o.Selvaraj ...Respondents
(Respondents 1 to 6 brought on record as
LRs of the deceased R2 viz., P.S.Kuganesan
vide order of this Court dated 17.02.2021.)
Appeals is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the common judgment and decree dated 20.11.2008
in M.C.O.P.No.4034 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Vehicles
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.241 of 2012
For Appellant : Mr. S.Arun Kumar
For Respondent No.1, 4 & 5 : Mr. G.Balaji Prasad
Respondent No.2 : Died
Respondent No.6 : No appearance
----
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Physical hearing".
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and dated
20.11.2008 in M.C.O.P.No.4034 of 2006 on the file of the Motor
Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent before the tribunal .
The respondents 1 & 2 have filed the said claim petition, claiming a
sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death occurred in
the road accident that took place on 10.04.2006.
3. It is the case of the respondents 1 & 2/claimants that on
10.04.2006 at about 1.15 hrs the deceased was riding motor cycle
bearing Reg.No.TN04-M-2972. While proceeding from AVIT
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.241 of 2012
College, Payanur towards Mamallapuram on E.C.R. Road, at that
time a bus bearing Reg.No.TN 21-S-9339 which was proceeding
ahead of him, applied sudden break to avoid hitting a stray dog,
the deceased/rider was taken back and swerved the motorcycle his
left and inspite of his best efforts collided with the said bus,
resulting in his death on the way to the hospital. The said accident
had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the
driver of the said bus. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased filed
claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.15,00000/- as compensation.
The tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence has
fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and being
insurer of the vehicle, insurance company/appellant herein was
directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,80,000/- to the claimants.
4. Challenging the liability and quantum the appellant /
Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants 4
witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to & PW4 and marked
documents ExP1 to P13. On side of the respondents RW1 was
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.241 of 2012
examined and marked two documents RW1 & RW2.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company
has submitted that the FIR was registered on the basis of the
complaint given by the eye witness/pillion rider of the motorcycle
involved in the accident. Inspite of the available evidence, the
tribunal, without any basis had accepted the version of the
claimants, who are not an eye witness to the accident, fastened
the liability on the insurance company. The learned counsel further
submitted that the bus was stationed at Pooncheri bus stop, the
deceased rider of the motorcycle hit the stationed bus immediately
on his applying sudden brake would only go to show that he was
driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without keeping
reasonable distance at controllable speed.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company
further submitted that the tribunal erred in fixing monthly income
at Rs.15,000/- and annual income of the deceased at
Rs.2,00,000/- by considering the fact that the deceased was a of
student of electronics and communication engineering. The
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.241 of 2012
compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads are also
very excessive and liable to be interfered with.
8. On the other hand , the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants/respondents 1 & 2 and 4 to 6 has submitted that based
on the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal has rightly
determined the compensation and fixed the negligence. Therefore,
the award passed by the tribunal is reasonable and fair and does
not require any interference by this Court.
9. The Miscellaneous Petition filed by the claimants to
implead the legal heirs of the deceased R2 is allowed. The Legal
Heirs of the deceased are impleaded as respondents 4 to 6 in the
present appeal.
10. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance
company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1,
4 &5 and perused the document available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.241 of 2012
11. It is seen from the award that the FIR was admittedly not
given by the driver of the bus, it was given by the pillion rider of
the motorcycle/3rd party. RW1 in his evidence has stated that he
heard some noise from behind and he got down and found rider
and pillion rider of two wheeler who got injured and he informed
the police and police removed the vehicle. He was not show as
defacto complainant in EX.R2/FIR. Hat it been true that RW1
immediately informed the police, the police would have just
registered a case on the basis of such information received from
him. But in the counter statement it is stated that on the back side
of the bus, was totally damaged. In view of the same, the
tribunal had disbelieved the evidence of RW1 and fixed the
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and directed the
insurance company to pay the compensation. Therefore, the
ground raised by the appellant in respect of negligence is liable to
be rejected.
12. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the
deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.241 of 2012
was doing final year B.E in Electronic and Communication
Engineering in Aarupadai Veedu Institute of Technology,
Kelambakkam. He was selected in the campus recruitment
conducted by Slash Support Indian Private Limited as Trainee
Support Engineer. The claimants also produced the job offer letter,
mentioning his future salary in the said job as Rs.15,000/-. To
substantiate the same, the claimants have marked documents
Exs.P7 /Campus recruitment records of the deceased and
Ex.P11/Campus recruitment records of PW3.
13. By considering the evidence of PW1,PW3 and PW4 and
the documents marked as Ex.P7 & P11, the tribunal has fixed
Rs.2,00,000/- as annual income of the deceased and after
deducting reasonable amount towards income tax purpose and
deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, has fixed at
Rs.1,10,000/- as annual income of the deceased. On considering
the age of the deceased and his parents, applied 12 years
multiplier as per second schedule and calculated loss of income to
the dependants at Rs.13,20,000/-. The sum awarded under the
conventional heads, transport to hospital and funeral expenses at
Rs.10,000/- and for Loss of love affection to the claimants 1 &2 at
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.241 of 2012
Rs.15,000/- each is fair. From the total compensation of
Rs.13,60,000/-, the tribunal has awarded 50% of the same, which
comes to Rs.6,80,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum.
According to this Court, the said compensation of Rs.6,80,000/-
awarded to the parents of the deceased is fair and reasonable and
the same is confirmed.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company
has submitted that the entire compensation amount along with
interest was already deposited before the tribunal. At this stage,
the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1,4 & 5 has
submitted that since the 2nd claimant/father of the deceased died,
the mother of the deceased/1st claimant has withdrawn the entire
compensation amount deposited by the insurance company. In
view of the above submissions, it is open to the Legal
Heirs/respondents 4 & 5 to approach the tribunal for their
apportionment by filing appropriate application in the manner
known to law.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.241 of 2012
15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
The judgment and decree dated 20.11.2008 passed by the tribunal
in M.C.O.P.No.4034 of 2006 is confirmed. No costs.
17.02.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet : yes
ak
To
1. The Chief Judge,
(Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal)
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.241 of 2012
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
ak
CMA.No.241 of 2012
17.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
