Madras High Court
M.Vimala vs P.Manikandan on 25 January, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
CMA(MD)No.801 of 2015
1.M.Vimala
2.Minor M.Pavithran
3.Minor M.Dharani
4.Minor M.Dhanush Raja
5.R.Thanga Nadachi
(Minor Appellants 2 to 4
are represented by their
Mother-Guardian 1st appellant
M.Vimala) : Appellants/Claimants
Vs.
1.P.Manikandan
2.H.Manikandan
3.Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited,
E-8, RHCO Industrial Area,
Cheettapura,
Jaippur,
Rajasthan.
4.Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
25B2/15, SRC Complex,
2nd Floor, North Block,
S.N.Highways,
Tirunelveli.
5.S.Chinnakannan
6.Reeganraj
7.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
rep. by its Branch Manager,
Micro Office, No.1/45 B-6,
2nd Floor, J.P.C Buildings,
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Kulachel Road,
Monday Market,
Kanyakumari District,
Tamil Nadu. : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the award, dated
20.03.2015 made in MCOP No.149 of 2013 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For R1 and R2 : No appearance
For R3 and R4 : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For 5th Respondent : Mr.G.Arasinathan
For 6th Respondent : Given up
For 7th Respondent : Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar
JUDGMENT
(Thro' VC)
Challenge made in this appeal is to the award, dated
20.03.2015 made in MCOP No.149 of 2013 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2.The brief facts of the case are that on 10.02.2013 at about
21.20 hours, when the deceased R.Murugan was riding his bicycle
from north to south of Anjugramam-Kanyakumari National
Highways Road, near Mettukudieruppu junction, the JCB TN-74-
R-1647, insured with Sriram General Insurance Company Limited,
driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner from the
opposite side, and while taking turn, the JCB hit against Bajaji
Pulsar Bike TN-74-M-1323, which was proceeding from north to
south. Due to that impact, the Bajaji Pulsar Bike dashed against the
bicycle ridden by the deceased, resulting which, he fell down,
sustained injuries and subsequently, in-spite of taking treatment, he
died on 14.06.2013. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the
deceased sought compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- by filing claim
petition before the tribunal.
3.The claimants have stated that at the time of accident, the
deceased was working as a load man-cum-cleaner, thereby he was
getting Rs.15,000/- per month and with regard to the alleged
accident, a criminal case in Crime No.83 of 2013 was registered by
the Anjugramam Police.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4.The claim was opposed by the respondents Insurance
Companies disputing the manner of accident and their liability to
pay compensation.
5.The Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary
evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred
due to the negligence of the drivers viz., driver of JCB and the rider
of Bajaji Pulsar Bike and directed the respondents 1 to 4 to pay
50% of the compensation and remaining 50% was directed to be
paid jointly or severally by the respondents 5 to 7 in the claim
petition and awarded compensation of Rs.24,09,900/- together with
interest @ 7.5% p.a. Being not satisfied with the award of
compensation granted by the tribunal, the claimants are before this
court as appellants.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
argued that the tribunal has failed to consider that at the time of
accident, the deceased was a load man and earning Rs.15,000/- per
http://www.judis.nic.in
month and erroneously decided that the deceased earned only Rs.
9,000/- per month and the award in respect of other heads are very
low and prays that the award of the tribunal has to be enhanced.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 3, 4, 5 and 7 submitted that the award of the tribunal
is based on the evidence and it is also reasonable and hence, it has
to be confirmed.
.
8.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased
was working as a load man and he was 39 years old at the time of
accident. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.9,000/- and by adding 30% towards future prospects and after
deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and by applying
multiplier '15', awarded Rs.15,79,500/- towards loss of income.
Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,00,400/- towards medical
expenses as per Ex.P4 and Rs.4,30,000/- under conventional heads.
In total, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,09,900/- together with
interest @ 7.5% p.a. This court is of the considered opinion that
the award of the tribunal, based on the evidence is reasonable and
warrants no interference of this court and the same is confirmed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
9.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed,
confirming the award of the tribunal. No costs.
25.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
er
http://www.judis.nic.in
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
To,
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Record Keeper,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Judgment made in
CMA(MD)No.801 of 2015
25.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
