Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Muthukannu
2021 Latest Caselaw 1614 Mad

                                                                   C.M.A(MD)No.638 of 2016

                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                           DATE :     25.01.2021

                                               CORAM:
                          THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
                                                 and
                               THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

                                         C.M.A(MD)No.638 of 2016
                                                   and
                                         C.M.P(MD)No.6838 of 2016

                      Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,
                      Sundaram Towers,
                      46, Whites Road,
                      Royapettai,
                      Chennai-14.                       : Appellant / 2nd Respondent

                                                           Vs.

                      1.Muthukannu
                      2.Kalaiselvi
                      3.Anandhi
                      4.Anjalai
                      5.Minor ManikandaPrabhu
                      6.Minor Priyanka
                      7.Minor Venkateshan
                      8.Palanisamy
                      9.Chinnammal

                      (Respondent Nos.5 & 6 were represented by
                      their guardian and mother, the 4th respondent
                      herein)
                                              : Respondent Nos.1 to 9/Claimants

                      10.Sudha
                                                : 10th respondent / 1st respondent




                      1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                      C.M.A(MD)No.638 of 2016

                      Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173
                      of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order
                      dated 10.09.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.5084 of 2013 on the file of
                      the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal(Special District Judge),
                      Trichirappalli.


                                For Appellant           : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew
                                For R-1 to R-7 & R-9    : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
                                                          (R-8 Dismissed)

                                                   JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)

The Insurance Company is the appellant. Challenging the

award dated 10.09.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.5084 of 2013 on the

file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal(Special District

Judge), Trichirappalli, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

2. The claimants, who are the respondents have made the

claim as compensation for the death of one late.Mariappan, who

died in the accident that occurred on 30.06.2013. The first

respondent and the fourth respondent are the first and second wife

of the deceased Mariappan. The respondent Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7

are the children and respondent Nos.8 and 9 are the parents of the

deceased.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.638 of 2016

3. The deceased was employed as a Foreman in Tamil

Nadu Electricity Board, Mannarpuram, Trichirappalli District. On the

date of accident, when the deceased was riding his two-wheeler, a

Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.47 AX 8777, hit him behind

and caused the accident resulting in his death. The compensation

claimed by the claimants was Rs.75,00,000/-. The owner of the

lorry, who is arrayed as tenth respondent in this appeal remained

ex-parte. The appellant / Insurance Company had taken permission

under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to contest the

case on all the grounds that are available to the owner without

prejudice to their rights to contest the claim under Section 149(2) of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. The Tribunal had found that the accident occurred due to

the negligence on the part of the Driver of the Tripper Lorry based

on the evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye-witness. However, the

Tribunal had deducted 10% for the contributory negligence on the

part of the deceased for not being cautious for reducing the speed of

the vehicle. So far as the compensation aspect is concerned,

P.W.3 was examined, who is the Account Supervisor of the Tamil

Nadu Electricity Board. He has stated that the deceased was

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.638 of 2016

working as Grade -II Foreman in the Electricity Board earning a sum

of Rs.40,946/- per month as salary. On the date of death, the

deceased had completed 50 years of age. The Tribunal after

deducting 1/5th amount for his personal expenses, fixed the

monthly contribution at Rs.32,756.80/- and adopted

multiplier of '11' and arrived at a sum of

Rs.43,23,897.60/- (Rs.32,756.80X12X11) as 'loss of dependency'

and on the other heads of 'loss of consortium', 'loss of love and

affection' and 'for transportation and funeral expenses', the Tribunal

had awarded Rs.40,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/-

respectively. In all, the compensation payable was fixed at

Rs.44,83,898/-.

5. From the above said sum, 20% was deducted for

professional tax and income tax. As already 10% had been

deducted from the compensation for contributory negligence,

30% from the total compensation arrived at was deducted and the

final amount payable was Rs.31,38,729/-. The Tribunal had

consciously avoided any payment to the second wife, who is the

fourth respondent and apportioned the amount as between the

other legal heirs viz., wife, children and parents.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.638 of 2016

6. The only point that was raised by the appellant /

Insurance Company in this appeal was that the deceased was

having two wives and employed in Electricity Board, which is in

violation of the Board's Standing Orders and therefore, he could

have lost his job at any time. Hence, the compensation payable

arrived at taking into account '11' is incorrect. .

7. However, in the counter statement filed by the

Insurance Company before the Tribunal, no such grounds were

taken by the appellant / Insurance Company except stating that the

second wife is not entitled for any compensation.

8. Therefore, such ground is not sustainable unless and

until any person aggrieved had preferred any complaint and

prosecuted the deceased. Excepting the above said point, there

was no other convincing argument from the side of the appellant /

Insurance Company for modifying the award as the defence taken

by the appellant based on the Board's Standing Orders, is not

available to the Insurance Company. Therefore, the said objection

is not sustainable, as the compensation otherwise awarded to the

claimants are just and reasonable and there is no reason to

interfere with the same.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.638 of 2016

9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

dismissed confirming the award dated 10.09.2015 made in

M.C.O.P.No.5084 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident

Claims Tribunal(Special District Judge), Trichirappalli. No Costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

(P.S.N.J.,) (S.K.J.,) 25.01.2021

Index :yes/No Internet :yes pm

To

1.The Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special District Judge), Trichirappalli.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.638 of 2016

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

AND S.KANNAMMAL, J.

pm

Judgment made in C.MA(MD)No.638 of 2016

25.01.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in