M/S.United India Insurance ... vs K.Vanniammal
2021 Latest Caselaw 1041 Mad

                                                                          C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2009


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED : 19.01.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

                                              C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2009
                                                          and
                                                M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2009


                      M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited,
                      Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
                      1783/84, South Street,
                      Thanjavur.                                       ... Appellant

                                                          Vs.
                      1.K.Vanniammal
                      2.S.Jeyalakshmi
                      3.Minor S.Dinesh
                      4.Minor S.Ramesh
                          (Minors are rep. through their mother and
                           next friend 2nd respondent
                      5.Visalakshi                                     ... Respondents


                      PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                      Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree made in M.C.O.P. No.
                      17 of 2006, dated 04.03.2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
                      Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Court cum E.C.Court,
                      Thanjavur.

                      1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                          C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2009




                                  For Appellant            : Mr. S.Muthalraj
                                  For Respondents          : No Appearance


                                                    JUDGMENT

The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal

questioning the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(Additional District and Sessions Court/EC Court), Thanjavur, in

M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2006, dated 04.03.2008, wherein, the Tribunal has

awarded a sum of Rs.1,93,000/- against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten

lakhs).

2. The claimants are the mother, wife and children of the

deceased Selvam, respectively. It is the case of the claimants that the

deceased Selvam, was working in Thanjavur Municipality as a Scavenger

and he was paid Rs.3500/- per month. When he was travelling in a

Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 49 D 9095, the driver drove the

vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hence, he fell down and he

was run over and died on the spot.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2009

3.The claim was resisted by the appellant insurance

company contending that the deceased attempted to get him from the

running tractor and hence, he invited his death, for which, the appellant

insurance company is not made liable to pay any compensation. It is also

stated that the vehicle was driven by a person who was not holding valid

driving license and it was the violation of the policy condition.

4.The parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence

before the Tribunal. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the

parties, it was held that the accident had occurred only due to the

negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor. Since the vehicle was

insured with the appellant, both the owner as well as the insurer are liable

to pay the compensation. Assailing the award, the present appeal has

been filed.

5.Heard, Mr.S.Muthal Raj, learned counsel for the appellant.

Though notice was served on the respondents and their names also

printed in the cause-list, none appears for them.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2009

6.From perusal of the records, it is seen that the deceased

was an employee in Thanjavur Municipality. Though it is contended that

he was paid a sum of Rs.3,500/- p.m. admittedly, the salary certificate

was not produced. Ex.P.6 would show that on the date of accident, the

fifth respondent herein, who is the owner of the vehicle had taken the

insurance policy and paid a sum of Rs.915/- towards premium and the

vehicle had coverage on the date of accident.

7. The Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as

Rs.1,000/-, awarded a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- towards loss of income.

Ex.P.2 shows that the deceased died at the age of 37 years and as per the

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma &

Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, the correct

multiplier is '15'. It is to be noted that no amount has been awarded for

future prospectus. The Tribunal without any calculation, has awarded a

sum of Rs.1,85,000/- for loss of income. In addition, Rs.5,000/- was

awarded for loss of consortium and Rs.1,000/- for transportation and

Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal has awarded a sum

of Rs.1,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2009

8.It is further evident from the records that the wife lost her

husband at the age of 32 and minor children were aged about 9 and 7 on

the date of accident. In the light of the above facts, the award of the

Tribunal is cannot said to be excessive or exorbitant.

9.Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that policy conditions have been violated, it has not been

proved neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court. I find no

reason to over-turn the decision of the Tribunal. The award of the

Tribunal is confirmed and thus the appeal fails.

10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and

the same is dismissed. Since the appeal is dismissed, the appellant 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 claimants 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their share in the award

amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with

proportionate accrued interest and costs, as per the ratio of

apportionment made by the Tribunal. The claimants 3 and 4, who are

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2009

minors, by this time, would have attained majority and they are permitted

to withdraw their share in the award amount by filing necessary

application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

19.01.2021

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rm

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.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2009

To

1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge for EC Act cases, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Thanjavur.

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

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2009

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

rm

JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)No.516 of 2009

19.01.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in