Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs A.Sivasubramanian on 19 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reservation 15.03.2021
Date of Judgment 14.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
C.M.A(MD)No.910 of 2017
and
CMP(MD)No.9687 of 2017
The Branch Manager,
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company,
Raja Tower,
Plot No.2054, 2nd Avenue, 2nd Floor,
Next to Senthil Nursing Home,
Annanagar, Chennai. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.A.Sivasubramanian
2.Muthumari
3.Nallaperumal
4.Gurumoorthy
(R4 Declared as major,
vide court order, dated
dated 19.02.2021 made
in CMP(MD)No.2335 of 2018
in CMA(MD)No.910 of 2017)
5.Minor Rajesh : R1 to R5/Petitioners 1 to 5
6.General Manager,
M/s.Sical Logistics Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under
Companies Act,
Having Register Office at
110, Anna Salai,
Guindy, Chennai. : 6th Respondent/1st Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court),
Kovilpatti, made in MCOP No.47 of 2012, dated 28.01.2016.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For R1 to R5 : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For 6th Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging
the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub
Court), Kovilpatti, in MCOP No.47 of 2012, dated 28.01.2016.
2.The short facts of the case is that on 14.08.2011 at about
4.30 pm, the deceased S.Arumugam and his brother
S.Nallaperumal went to see one Karuppasamy employed in a weigh
Bridge at Ettayapuram Road and after seeing him, both of them
were returned back to their house, at that time, the Taurus Lorry
TN-09-AS-0128 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit
against the cyclist of S.Arumugam on his back, who was proceeding
on the extreme left side of the road, fell on the right side of the
road and the front wheel as well as the back wheel of the lorry ran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
over S.Arumugam and he died instantaneously at the place of
accident itself due to the grievous injuries sustained by him. The
legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on the ground that driver of the
Lorry caused the accident.
3.Before the tribunal, on the side of the claimants, 2
witnesses were examined and marked 10 documents. On the side of
the Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document
was marked.
4.The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the
driver of the offending vehicle has caused the accident and
awarded compensation of Rs.18,75,000/- together with interest @
7.5% p.a. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company is
before this court.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6.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.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance
Company submitted that there was no sufficient document filed to
prove the income of the deceased and hence, the loss of income
arrived at by the tribunal is on the higher side and reasonable
compensation may be given. Further, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant Insurance company submitted that only
the claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to claim compensation and the
other claimants are brother and sister of the deceased and they are
not entitled to claim compensation and prays for allowing this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal. In support of his contention, he relied up on
the decision reported in 2020(2) TN MAC 374(SC) (New India
Assurance Company Limited Vs. Somwati and others).
8.In this case, the first petitioner/1st claimant was examined
as PW1 and he stated that his son has completed Diploma in
Mechanical Engineering and he was working in as Mechanical
Engineer in T.L.C Universal Private Limited, Bangalore and lastly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
he was working in EMCON, Chennai and earned a sum of Rs.
20,000/- per month and due to the death of his son, they are
entitled to get compensation as prayed for.
9.In this case, PW1 stated that at the time of accident, the
deceased was working in EMCON, Chennai and earned Rs.20,000/-.
To prove it, no document was filed on the side of the respondents
1to 5/claimants. It was admitted by PW2 that he only filed ID card
issued by the TLC Universal Private Limited, Bangalore. Further, on
the side of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants to prove the
educational qualification of the deceased, no document was filed.
On perusal of Ex.P9 ID Card, it reveals that prior to the death, the
deceased was working in TLC Universal Private Limited,
Bangalore, but no educational certificate was submitted. In the
absence of any documentary evidence to prove the income of the
deceased, it is bounden duty of the claimants to prove that the
deceased was working in EMCON, Chennai and earning Rs.
20,000/-. But no document was filed to prove the income of the
deceased. In the absence of avocation and income, considering the
above facts and keeping in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. Divisional Manager, United
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014(1) TN MAC 459 (SC), this
court fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per
month.
10.It is settled law that in case the deceased was self-
employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. In the instant case, the tribunal has added 50%
towards future prospects. Hence, this court is of the considered
view that 40% has to be added towards future prospects to
calculate the income of the deceased, as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017(6) CTC 493 (National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others). By
doing so, the monthly loss of income of the deceased is calculated
at Rs.9,100/- (Rs.6,500/- + 2,600/-). After deducting 50% towards
his personal and living expenses, the monthly income is arrived at
Rs.4,550/- (Rs.9,100/- x 1/2). By applying proper multipler 18, this
court awards Rs.9,82,800/- (Rs.4,550/- x 12 x 18) towards loss of
income. In addition to that, this Court awards Rs.80,000/- towards
parental consortium to the claimants 1 to 2, who are parents of the
deceased; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
towards funeral expenses. In total, the claimants would be entitled
for Rs.10,92,800/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a.
14.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. The award is reduced to Rs.10,92,800/- from Rs.
18,75,000/-. The appellant Insurance Corporation is directed to
deposit the modified award amount together with interest @ 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, less the
amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such compliance, the
claimants 1 and 2 are each entitled to withdraw Rs.5,08,900?/-
and the claimants 3 to 5 are each entitled to Rs.25,000/- with
accrued interest and costs. Excess amount if any shall be refunded
to the appellant Insurance Company. No costs.
14.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
To,
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Sub Judge, Kovilpatti.
2.The Record Keeper,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Judgement made
in C.M.A(MD)No.910 of 2017
14.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
