The Branch Manager vs Silambayee
2021 Latest Caselaw 4684 Mad

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 23.02.2021

                                                      CORAM

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

                                           C.M.A(MD) No.60 of 2010
                                                    and
                                             M.P(MD)No.2 of 2010

                      The Branch Manager,
                      The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
                      Trichy.                              .. Appellant/Respondent No.2

vs.

1.Silambayee

2.Palaniswamy

3.Seetha @ Seethalakshmi .. Respondents/Petitioners

4.Vasanthan .. Respondent/Respondent-1

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 14 th day of August, 2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.183 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Pudukkottai.

                                   For Appellant      : Mr.S.Subbiah
                                   For R1 to R3       : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar





http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                    JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance

Company questioning the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Sub- Court, Pudukottai in M.C.O.P.No.183 of 2002.

2. The legal heirs of the deceased Arumugam filed a claim petition

seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. It is their case that on

10.02.2002 the deceased was returning from his brother's daughter's

house by walk on Thanjavur main road, when he was nearing Mulloor

Branch road, a lorry, belonging to the first respondent insured with the

appellant herein, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

and hit against him. In the impact, he sustained head injury and

immediately, he was taken to Pudukkottai Government Hospital. Despite

treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants have further

stated that the deceased was 50 years old and he was earning Rs.10,000/-

per month through agricultural and also by manufacturing bricks and he

died only due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry and hence, they

are entitled for the claim.

http://www.judis.nic.in

3. The appellant resisted the claim petition contending that the

lorry was not involved in the accident which had taken place on

10.02.2002 and it was in the workshop from 08.02.2002 to 14.02.2002. It

is also stated that the claim was exorbitant.

4. During trial, the claimant marked Ex.P1-FIR and Ex.P.4-judgment

of the Criminal Court to show that the criminal case was registered

against the driver of the lorry and he also pleaded guilty and paid the

fine amount. Ex.P2 is the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The

appellant examined two witnesses, who are the private investigator and

the employee of the Insurance Company. They marked the investigation

report as Ex.R1.

5. Though it was stated that a complaint was given to CBCID to

enquire into the involvement of the vehicle in the accident, but they were

not able to produce any records to show the date of the complaint and

the investigation carried out by the agency. After analysing the evidence

produced by the claimants and the Insurance Company, the Tribunal

http://www.judis.nic.in came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the

negligence of the driver of the lorry. I find no illegality in the

conclusion reached by the Tribunal for the reason that admittedly, the

appellant did not produce any record to show that the claimants have

come up with the false case.

6. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though

the claimants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per

month, but no evidence was produced to substantiate the same and

hence, the Tribunal, has taken the income as Rs.1,200/- per month and

after deducting Rs.400/- towards his personal expenses, held that he has

contributed Rs.800/- to the family and by applying multiplier '11'

awarded Rs.1,05,600/- for loss of income. The Tribunal awarded

Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses.

In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,100/- along with interest

at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

7.As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

http://www.judis.nic.in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in

2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC) and 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC)

[National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi], the proper

multiplier is '13' and the claimants are entitled for Rs.70,000/- as

conventional damages, but in the case, the Tribunal has awarded a

sum of Rs.1,18,100/-. In view of the above fact, I find no merits in

the case of the appellant and hence, the appeal is dismissed and the

award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant/Insurance company

is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and

costs as directed by the Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if

any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to

withdraw the award amount by making necessary application before the

Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

23.02.2021

Index:Yes/No

http://www.judis.nic.in Internet:Yes/No am

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Pudukkottai.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J

am

JUDGMENT MADE IN

C.M.A(MD) No.60 of 2010

23.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in