Madras High Court
M/S.United India Insurance Co. vs Manoranjitham on 25 January, 2021
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
and
C.M.A(MD)No.1311 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
M/s.United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Rep. through its Divisional Manager,
6A, West Veli Street,
Madurai-625 001. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
Pandithurai (died)
1.Manoranjitham
2.Minor Siddarth ...Respondents 1 & 2/petitioners
3.C.R.Manikandan Bricks
Rep. through its Proprietor. ...3rd Respondent/1st Respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
4.M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited,
Rep. through its Managing Director,
Having office at Bye-pass Road,
Madurai. ...4th Respondent/3rd Respondent
(Minor Respondent No.2 is represented
by his next friend and Father
Respondent No.1)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated
06.01.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1805 of 2006 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions
Judge) (Fast Track Court-III), Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai
For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.A.Muruganantham
For R3 : Mr.R.Venkateswaran
For R4 : Mr.M.Prakash
C.M.A(MD)No.1311 of 2010
M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. through its Divisional Manager,
6A, West Veli Street,
Madurai-625 001. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs
1.P.Ramesh Muniyandi
2.Minor Siddarth ... Respondents 1 & 2/Petitioners
3.C.R.Manikandan Bricks
rep. through its Proprietor ...3rd Respondent/1st Respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
4.M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited,
Rep. through its Managing Director,
Having Office at Bye-Pass Road,
Madurai. ...4th Respondent/3rd Respondent
(Minor Respondent No.2 is represented
by his next friend and Father
Respondent No.1)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated
06.01.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1023 of 2008 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions
Judge) (Fast Track Court-III), Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R1 & R2 : dismissed vide court order
dated 10.04.2019
For R3 : Mr.R.Venkateswaran
For R4 : Mr.M.Prakash
C O M M ON JUDGMENT
These appeals have been preferred against the common
judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1805 of 2006 and 1023
of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District &
Sessions Judge) (Fast Track Court-III), Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
2.The facts in brief would run thus:-
One P.Pandeeswari died in a motor vehicle accident, which
occurred on 25.10.2005. Her parents along with her minor son
Siddarth filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1805 of 2006 claiming
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Her husband along with her minor
son filed another claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1023 of 2008 claiming
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is their case that the deceased
travelled as a passenger in a car bearing Registration No.TN-59-
AB-4444 belonging to M/s.C.R.Manikandan Bricks, who is the one of
the respondent herein, from Chinna Udaippu to Madurai from west
to east direction. At that time, near Airport, the bus bearing
Registration No.TN-59-N-0901 belonging to the fourth
respondent/Transport Corporation came from opposite direction in a
high speed and dashed against the car.
3. Though it is contended that both the drivers of the vehicle
are responsible for the accident, the Tribunal, taking note of the fact
that the FIR came to be registered based on the complaint of the
driver of the bus and the claim petitions filed by the fourth
respondent herein-Transport Corporation against the owner of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
vehicle and insurer in O.P.No.66 of 2008 before the I Additional
Sub-Court, Madurai, held that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the car.
4. While considering the quantum of compensation the
Tribunal found that the deceased Pandeeswari was 33 years old at
the time of accident, as per Ex.P7 she was running a business in the
name of D.T.P.Offset Printing and considering the Xerox copies of
the income tax returns filed, fixed the income at Rs.7,560/- and by
applying multiplier '17' awarded a total compensation of
Rs.10,28,160/- for loss of income. In addition, Rs.25,000/- was
awarded for love and affection for the parents and Rs.5,000/- for
child. Totally, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,58,000/-.
Challenging the award of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been
filed.
5. It is contended, by Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel
for the appellant, that the Tribunal failed to consider the accident
happened in the highway when there was no other vehicle, hence
entire negligence cannot be fixed on the driver of the car. He would
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
further add that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
exorbitant and it has to be reduced. This Court is not able to agree
with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants
made submissions justifying the award passed by the Tribunal.
7. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, Mr.B.A.Muruganantha, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents 1 & 2, Mr.R.Venkateswaran, learned counsel
appearing for the third respondent and Mr.M.Prakash, learned
counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
8. In the instant case, the death of P.Pandeeswari in an
accident, which took place on 25.10.2005, is not disputed as stated
supra. Both the claim petitions came to be filed establishing that
the drivers are equally responsible for the accident. The driver of
the bus gave evidence narrating the manner of accident. Ex.P1
shows that the criminal case has been registered against the driver
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
of the car based on the complaint of the driver of the bus. Charge-
sheet was also filed against him. The Tribunal, following the
judgment of the I Additional Sub-Court, Madurai passed in O.P.No.
66 of 2008, in which, Transport Corporation sought compensation
against the driver of the car, came to the conclusion that the
accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the
car. I find no reason to interfere with the findings on negligence.
9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
Ex.P23 is a birth certificate of the deceased, which shows that she
was 34 years old at the time of accident. Exs.P7, P10, P13 and P14
would show that the deceased was running a business in the name
of Poorna Graphics. Ex.P8 is the income tax return submitted by the
deceased. Based on the above evidence, the Tribunal held that the
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,560/- per month and applying
multiplier '17' to arrive at loss of income. It is also the submission
of the learned counsel for the appellant that proper multiplier is only
'10', but the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier '17'. It is
relevant to note that the deceased was running a business and she
died at the age of 34. As per the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
Court, she is entitled for future prospects. But the Tribunal, without
applying the future prospects, awarded a sum of Rs.10,28,160/- for
loss of income after deducting 1/3rd for her personal expenses.
10. It is also relevant to note that the parents are senior
citizen and her son is a minor and hence, the amount awarded for
loss of love and affection is not excessive. Therefore, I find no
reason to interfere with the finding on quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
dismissed. The appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit the
award amount with accrued interest and costs as directed by the
Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited, if any. On
such deposit being made, the major claimants are permitted to
withdraw their share with interest and costs as apportioned by the
Tribunal. The share of the minor claimant shall be deposited in any
one of the nationalized banks in a fixed deposit till he attains
majority. The interest accruing on the minor deposit is permitted to
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
be withdrawn by the father of the minor claimant once in three
months. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
25.01.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
am
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.
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Additional District & Sessions Judge)
(Fast Track Court-III), Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
am
C.M.A(MD)No.1310 of 2010
and
C.M.A(MD)No.1311 of 2010
25.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
