Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Selvamani .. 1St on 26 February, 2021
C.M.A(MD) No.1750 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD) No.1750 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2010
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Cuddalore. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent
vs.
1.Selvamani .. 1st Respondent/1st Petitioner
2.Thavamani ..2nd Respondent/2nd Petitioner
3.Minor Saran Raj ..3rd Respondent/3rd Petitioner
4.Minor Sharmila ..4th Respondent/4th Petitioner
5.Minor Sasikala
(Minors 3,4 and 5 are represented through
their father and natural Guardian
1st Respondent herein) ..5th Respondent/5th Petitioner
(Respondents 3 to 5 were declared
as major as per the order dated
26.02.2021)
6.Sattanathan ..6th Respondent/1st Respondent
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1750 of 2010
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 4th February,
2008 made in MCOP No.305 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sub Court,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Mayiladuthurai.
For Appellant :Mr.N.Murugesan
For R1 & R2 :Mr.R.Vijayakumar
For R6 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning
the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court,
Mayiladuthurai passed in M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2006.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the parents and the minor
brother and minor sisters of the deceased Raja filed claim petition
claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. According to them, on
11.06.2006 the deceased along with his friend Chelladurai was travelling
in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-01-Y-4767 from Chinnagudi
to Karaikal. At the time, a tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-51-
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1750 of 2010
U-4141 owned by the first respondent and insured with the appellant
came in a high speed and hit behind the motorcycle. In which, the
deceased fell down and run over by the lorry and died on the spot.
3. The appellant herein contested the claim petition stating that the
deceased drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he was
responsible for the accident and hence, no liability can be fixed on the
Insurance Company.
4. Before the Tribunal, Chelladurai, who travelled with the
deceased was examined as P.W.2 and in his evidence, he narrated the
manner of accident as set out in the claim petition. He also produced
Ex.P1-FIR. So, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred
due to the negligence of the driver of the tanker lorry. Hence, I find no
infirmity in the said findings of the Tribunal.
5. With regard to quantum, the deceased died in the age of 23 years
and he was a bachelor. It is the case of the claimant that he was owning a
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1750 of 2010
motorboat for catching fish, thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But,
no evidence was produced in support there of. Hence, the Tribunal has
fixed the notional income at Rs.3,000/- and by applying multiplier '17',
awarded a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- as loss of income after deducting 1/3rd
for his personal expenses. Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded for loss of love
and affection. Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- for
transportation. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- as
compensation.
6. Mr.N.Murugesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that when no documentary evidence was produced to prove
the income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought not to have taken the
notional income at Rs.3,000/- and the award under the loss of love and
affection is also on the higher side.
7. I find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant for the reason that the first claimant has categorically
deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1750 of 2010
per month. Since, they were not able to produce any documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has fixed the income at Rs.3,000/-. It is relevant
to note that parents of the deceased are senior citizen and the other
claimants 3 to 5 are the minors and hence, I find no reason to interfere
with the award passed by the Tribunal.
8.The claim petition of the year 2006 and at that relevant point of
time, the respondents 3 to 5/claimants 3 to 5 were minors and by now,
they should have been become major. So, they are hereby declared as
major and the Tribunal is hereby directed to disburse their share in the
award.
9.In that view, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, as
devoid of merits. The appellant and the 6th respondents are directed to
deposit the entire award amount, jointly and severally as directed by the
Tribunal, 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 being made, the respondents 1 to
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1750 of 2010
5/Claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as per the ratio
of apportionment made by the Tribunal, by making necessary application
before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 26.02.2021
Internet:Yes/No
am
To
1.The Principal Sub Court,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Mayiladuthurai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.1750 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J
am
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD) No.1750 of 2010
26.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
