Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Ramalakshmi on 19 February, 2021
C.M.A.(MD) No.1233 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A.(MD) No.1233 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011
The Branch Manager
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
New No.25, 2nd Floor
Usman Road, T.Nagar North
Chennai-600 017 ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Ramalakshmi
2.Valliammal
3.Ramesh ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 12.04.2011
in M.C.O.P.No.226 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Srivilliputhur.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Saravana Kumar for R1
R2 – Dismissed
vide Court Order dated 04.11.2019
No appearance for R3
___________
Page 1 of 7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1233 of 2011
JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the Insurance
Company questioning the Award, dated 12.04.2011, passed in M.C.O.P.No.
226 of 2009, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court,
Srivilliputhur.
2. The wife and mother of the deceased, namely, Murugesan filed the
claim petition for a compensation of Rs.18,72,661/-. According to the
claimants, on 06.04.2009, at about 11.50 a.m., when the deceased was
proceeding in his Motor Bike on Pondy Main Road, an Ambassador Car
bearing registration No.TN45 P3333, owned by the third respondent and
insured with the appellant – Insurance Company came in a high speed and hit
against the Motor Bike. In the impact, the deceased fell down and he was ran
over and died on the spot. The claimants would further state that the
deceased was 40 years old and he was working as Office Assistant in
Cuddalore Collectorate and he was paid Rs.11,618/- per month. Since he
died due to the negligence of the driver of the Ambassador Car, the claimants
are entitled to claim compensation from the owner and the insurer of the
offending vehicle.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1233 of 2011
3. The appellant – Insurance Company resisted the claim petition
disputing the manner of accident and the liability to pay compensation.
4. The parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence.
5. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the
Ambassador Car and awarded a sum of Rs.14,95,960 as compensation.
Challenging the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed.
6. Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant – Insurance Company, would argue that the Tribunal ought to have
fixed the monthly income at Rs.12,258/- when the actual salary as per Ex.P12
was only Rs.7,246/-. According to the learned counsel, the actual income of
the deceased on the date of the accident has to be taken into account for
calculating the loss of income and further, deduction has to be made for the
payment of income tax.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
justified the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1233 of 2011
8. P.W.2, who witnessed the accident, gave evidence in support of
the case of the claimant. Furthermore, Ex.P1 – First Information Report,
Ex.P3 – Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report and Ex.P4 – Charge Sheet were
marked to show that criminal proceedings were initiated against the driver of
the Car. Since no contra evidence was produced on behalf of the appellant –
Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident
happened due to the negligence of the driver of the Car. I find no illegality in
the findings of the Tribunal in this regard.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimants are the legal heirs of the
deceased. Ex.P16 shows that the deceased was 40 years old on the date of the
accident and his monthly salary was Rs.7,246/-. Ex.P12 is the Salary
Certificate. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that as per Sixth Pay
Commission, the deceased would be paid Rs.12,258/- and on this basis,
calculated the loss of income. It is settled law that actual salary of the
deceased has to be taken into account to arrive at the quantum of
compensation. It is not seriously disputed that the deceased is a permanent
employee in a Government Service and he is entitled to addition of 30% for
future prospectus. Hence, the salary is fixed at Rs.9,419.80 [Rs.7,246 +
Rs.2,173.80 (25% of Rs.7,246/-], from which 1/3rd is to be deducted towards
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1233 of 2011
personal expenses, so, the contribution would be Rs.6,279.86 rounded off to
Rs.6,280/- and by adopting multiplier “15”, the loss of income would come to
Rs.11,30,400/- [Rs.6,280/- X 12 X 15].
10. As per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 13 Scale 12], the
claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads. By
adding Rs.70,000/-, the total amount comes to Rs.12,00,400/-. Accordingly,
the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.14,95,960/- to
Rs.12,00,400/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. Since
the annual income of the deceased is admittedly within the tax exemption, no
deduction is required to be made for income tax.
11. The appellant – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
above modified award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the
amount already deposited, before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the
claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares in the award
amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with
proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment made by
the Tribunal.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1233 of 2011
12. For the foregoing reasons, the civil miscellaneous appeal is
partly allowed and the Judgment and Award, dated 12.04.2011, passed in
M.C.O.P.No.226 of 2009, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court,
Srivilliputhur, are modified to the extent as indicated above. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.02.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the Judgment may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
krk
To:
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Srivilliputhur.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1233 of 2011
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
krk
C.M.A.(MD) No.1233 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011
19.02.2021
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
