Madras High Court
M/S Reliance General Insurance ... vs N.Ramakrishnan on 12 July, 2021
C.M.A.(MD).No.595 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
C.M.A.(MD).No.595 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5708 of 2021
M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Through its Manager,
Madathu Street,
Kumbakonam,
Tanjore District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.N.Ramakrishnan
2.Padmavathy
Gnanaprakaash (died)
3.Suriya
4.Kanagadurga
5.Minor Krithika
(minor respondent is represented
through her mother, guardian and
Next friend the 4th respondent)
... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.595 of 2021
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate of Tanjore at
Kumbakonam in MCOP No.16 of 2015 dated 25.08.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondents : Mr.N.Marudhaiyan (for R1 and R2)
Mr.K.Kalaivanan (for R4 and R5)
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is to the award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam in
MCOP No.16 of 2015.
2.The facts in brief are that the parents of the deceased Karthick filed the
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is their case that the
deceased Karthick travelled as pillion rider in a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing
Reg. No.TN-51-R-5752 and the vehicle was driven by the owner Gnanaprakash.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.595 of 2021
When the vehicle was proceeding near Kollumangudi, the motorcycle hit against
a TATA AC vehicle. It is alleged that the rider Gnanaprakash drove it in a rash
and negligent manner. Though the deceased was carried to Government hospital,
Mayiladuthurai, he succumbed to the injuries. According to the claimants, the
deceased died at the age of 29 years and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
doing mason work. It is seen that pending disposal of the claim petition, the wife
of the deceased and his minor daughter were impleaded as respondents 4 and 5.
3.The appellant resisted the claim petition contending that the rider of the
motorcycle drove it by observing traffic rules, but the accident was caused by the
driver of the TATA AC vehicle. The age, income and avocation of the deceased
was denied in the counter.
4.In the course of trial, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.
1 to P.4 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined
and two documents were produced. In the conclusion of trial, the Tribunal found
that the rider of the two wheeler was responsible for the accident and awarded
compensation of Rs.13,07,852/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.595 of 2021
Questioning the award, the present appeal has been filed.
5.Mr.V.Sakthivel, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accident
had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the opposite
vehicle, namely TATA AC. As the owner and the insurer was not impleaded, the
claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-jointer of necessary parties. It is
next contended that the appellant has proved the violation of policy conditions
and hence, liability of the appellant ought to have been exonerated and the claim
petition against the appellant is to be dismissed.
6.Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents
Mr.N.Maruthiyan and Mr.K.Kalaivanan submitted that the award of the Tribunal
is fair and reasonable and the appellant has not made out any ground to upset the
award of the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials
placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.595 of 2021
8.In the instant case, Ex.P.4 shows that the claimants and the respondents 4
and 5 in the claim petition are the legal heirs of the deceased. The claimants
proved the age of the deceased as 29 through P.W.1 and Ex.P.3-Postmortem
Certificate. After analyzing the evidence of P.W.1, the Tribunal held that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the two wheeler. R.W.1
was examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked only to prove that the rider, the
said Gnanaprakash was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the
relevant point of time. Except the evidence referred above, no other material was
produced by the respondents to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of
the TATA AC vehicle. So, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding of
the Tribunal on negligence.
9.The claimants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month, but no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the same.
Hence, the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.4,500/- and by adding 50%
towards future prospects, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,750/-.
Following the decision in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.595 of 2021
Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, multiplier
'17' was applied to arrive at loss of income. Taking note of the facts that the
deceased died leaving behind his wife, minor daughter and aged parents, the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,07,852/-. Though it is contended that the
award of the Tribunal is on the higher side, after going through the records, we
are convinced with the award of the Tribunal and it cannot be said to be
exorbitant and excessive. Hence, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, as devoid of
merits. The appellant/Insurance Company 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 are entitled to withdraw the award amount, less the
amount already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest and costs
as apportioned by the Tribunal. The major claimants are permitted to withdraw
their share after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. Further, the
Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimant in any one of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.595 of 2021
nationalised banks, as fixed deposit under the Cumulative Deposit Scheme, till
the minor attains the age of major and hand over the fixed deposit certificate to
the mother of the minor claimant. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [B.P.,J.]
12.07.2021
skn
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
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 Accident Claims Tribunal
-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur at Kumbakonam
2.V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.595 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
skn
C.M.A.(MD).No.595 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5708 of 2021
12.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
