Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Michaelammal on 24 February, 2021
CMA(MD)No.433 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 24.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD)No.433 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Through its Branch Manager,
Office at Shobha TSM Complex,
Railway Station Road,
Palakkad- 678 001. .. Appellant
vs.
1.Michaelammal
2.Minor Muthu Jedis
3.Minor Atchaya
4.Pitchaiammal
(Minor Respondents 2 and 3 are rep.
through their mother and next guardian
the 1st respondent herein)
5.Vannithangam ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 24.06.2009 in
MCOP No.1196 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.433 of 2010
For Appellant : Mr.K.Bhaskaran
For Respondents : Mr.T.Selvakumaran (for R1 to R4)
No appearance (for R5)
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company
challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge), Tirunelveli in MCOP No.1196 of 2007 dated
24.06.2009.
2.The claim petition was filed by the wife, minor children and the
mother of the deceased namely, Thiraviaraj. According to them, on
04.08.2007 at 02.00 a.m, the deceased was travelling in a Mini Lorry
bearing registration No.TN-72-Q-1530, which was owned by the first
respondent and insured with the second respondent in the claim petition,
as a load-man. When the vehicle was proceeding on Tirunelvei –
Tisayanvillai main road, the driver drove it very rashly and negligently
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.433 of 2010
and as a result, it entered into ditch dug for the purpose of laying road
and capsized on the left side. In the accident, the deceased was trapped
inside the load and died on the spot. The claimants sought compensation
of Rs.10,00,000/-, but the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,46,500/- with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Questioning the award, the present
appeal has been filed.
3.The defence of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the
deceased travelled as a gratuitous passenger, in violation of the policy
condition, hence, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company.
To prove the defence, on the side of the appellant, two witnesses were
examined and Ex.R.1 and R2 were marked
4.In the matter on hand, it is not in dispute that the offending
vehicle at the relevant point of time, was owned by the first respondent in
the claim petition and it was insured with the appellant herein. It is
equally not disputed that the vehicle had comprehensive policy. R.W.1
marked insurance policy as Ex.R2 and admitted in the evidence that it
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.433 of 2010
was comprehensive policy and they collected overall premium of Rs.75/-
for non-fare passenger. The Tribunal, taking note of the evidence
produced by the appellant, held that they are liable to pay compensation.
I find no illegality or irregularity in the finding of the Tribunal.
5.Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the deceased died at the age
of 27 years and his wife was 22 years old and the claimants 2 and 3 were
three years and one year respectively. According to the claimants, the
deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but no record was produced
to prove the same. Thereafter, the Tribunal has fixed notional income at
Rs.4500/- and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, held that
the contribution is Rs.3,000/- to the family and by applying multiplier
'17' has awarded Rs.6,12,000/-. In addition, Rs.5,000/ was awarded
towards transportation; Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5000/-
towards loss of consortium; Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate; Rs.
20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In total, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.6,46,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
This Court is of the opinion that the amount is reasonable. Hence, the
award of the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.433 of 2010
6.The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company
Mr.K.Bhaskaran would argue that the interest is to be reduced from 9%
to 7.5%. Though it was opposed by the learned counsel for the claimants
Mr.T.Selvakumaran, considering the fact that the incident took place in
the year 2007, the interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5%.
7.In that view, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award
amount with accrued interest and costs, 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, the major claimants are
permitted to withdraw the award amount as apportioned by the Tribunal,
less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate
interest and costs. Further, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of
the minor claimants in any one of the nationalised banks, as fixed deposit
under the Cumulative Deposit Scheme, till the minors attain the age of
major and hand over the fixed deposit certificate to the mother of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.433 of 2010
minor claimants. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
24.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.433 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM.,J
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.433 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
24.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
