Madras High Court
Tata Aig Insurance Company Ltd vs Ramalakshimi on 23 July, 2021
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
TATA AIG Insurance Company Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
No.4, 5, AA Towers 3rd Floor,
Bye-pass Road,
Ellish Nagar,
Madurai. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Ramalakshimi
2.Minor Santhana Vinith
3.Minor Santhana Vignesh
(Minors are represented by their next
friend and guardian, the 1st respondent)
4.Rajeswari
5.Murugan
6.Umadevi
7.Pandian
... Respondents
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.2017 passed
in MCOP No.19 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-
Judge), Devakottai.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Anandkumar (for R1 to R4 & R5)
Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar (for R6)
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]
This appeal arises out of the Judgment and award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Devakkottai in MCOP No.19 of 2012,
wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.39,10,000/- against the
claim of Rs.15,00,000/-.
2.The facts in brief necessary for disposal of the appeal would run thus:-
One Chandrakumar met with an accident at 09.30 a.m on 21.12.2011 when
he was riding his TVS Sports motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-67-AB-4617 and
succumbed to the injuries. His wife, two minor children and his parents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
approached the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- alleging that
when the deceased was riding his motorcycle near Kottai main road, Karaikudi, a
car bearing Reg.No.TN-60-T-0050 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and
hit against the two wheeler, in which, the said Chandrakumar sustained injuries
on his head and neck. Though he was immediately carried to Karaikudi
Government hospital, but he died.
3.According to the claimants, the deceased was 27 years and he was hale
and health at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
working as a Labour Contractor under Construction Engineer Ambrose. It is
further stated that even though the first respondent sold the vehicle to the second
respondent and R.C was also transferred in the name of the purchaser, the
insurance policy was taken in the name of the original owner and it was inforce
on the date of accident and hence, all the respondents are liable to pay
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
4.The first respondent/Umadevi filed a counter statement denying and
disputing the averments made in the claim petition. According to her, she
purchased the car on 01.07.2010 from APT Maruti and it was insured with Bajail
Alliance Insurance Company. Since the car involved in a major accident on
22.10.2010, it was surrendered to Insurance Company and thereafter, settled the
loan amount obtained from Sundaram Finance. However, the Insurance Company
and the Maruti Agent sold the vehicle without changing her name and the
accident had taken place long thereafter. Hence, no liability can be fastened on
the first respondent.
5.The appellant, who was arrayed as third respondent in the claim petition
filed a detained counter contending that a cheque issued for a sum of Rs.15,867/-
by the first respondent dated 19.07.2011 towards payment of policy amount was
presented on 28.07.2011 and it got dishonoured for insufficient fund. Hence, on
07.08.2011, the insurer cancelled the policy and informed the same to the first
respondent and a copy was sent to the Regional Transport Officer, Periyakulam.
Hence, on the date of accident, there is no contract with the first respondent and
therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. The age, income and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
other averments including manner of accident made in the claim petition were
denied as false and incorrect.
6.During trial, on behalf of the claimants, 3 witnesses were examined and 8
documents were marked. The appellant examined one Mithun Maharaja as R.W.1
and produced 4 documents. Based on evidence adduced by the parties, the
Tribunal held that the accident happened due to the negligence of the driver of the
car and awarded compensation as mentioned above. Challenging the same, the
present appeal has been filed.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
would urge that the appellant has proved that the cheque, issued towards the
payment of insurance premium got dishonoured due to insufficient fund, which
resulted in cancellation of insurance policy and the same was intimated to the
insured. Since no premium was received by the appellant, there was no contract
of insurance policy between the appellant and the owner of the vehicle on the
date of accident. The learned counsel drawing the attention of this Court to the
counter filed by the first respondent in the claim petition that the vehicle was sold
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
when it was involved in the accident on 22.10.2010 submitted that on the date of
accident, the first respondent in the claim petition/6th respondent herein was not
the owner of the car. Criminal case registered against Pandian/the second
respondent in the claim petition proves transfer of vehicle, hence, the decree
directing the appellant to pay the compensation cannot be sustained. It is next
contended that the award amount is excessive and it has to be reduced.
8.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5
Mr.J.Anandkumar and learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent
Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted
that pursuant to the counter filed by the first respondent/Umadevi, no evidence
was let in to establish that she sold the vehicle to the second respondent at the
relevant point of time and it is an admitted fact that on the date of the accident,
the vehicle stood in the name of the first respondent as per the Registration
Certificate and hence, there is no illegality in the conclusion reached by the
Tribunal. In this regard, the learned counsel cited the following decisions:-
(i) (1998)1 SCC 371 (Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. vs.
Inderjit Kaur and others),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
(ii) (2012)5 SCC 234 (United India Insurance Company
Limited vs. Laxmamma and others),
(iii) (2018)3 SCC 1 ( Naveen Kumar vs. Vijaykumar
and others),
(iv) (2001)8 SCC 748 (Dr.T.V.Jose vs. Chacko P.M. alias
Thankachan and others),
(v) (2011)2 SCC 240 (Pushpa @ Leela & others vs.
Shakuntala and others).
9.The learned counsel appearing for the claimants also placed reliance on
the decision of this Court reported in 2019(1) TNMAC 54 (Andal and others
vs. Avinav Kannan and others) in support of his contention that rising in cost of
living, inflation can be taken note of to fix the income of the deceased.
10.This Court paid anxious consideration to the rival submission and
perused the materials available on record.
11.In the present case, there is no dispute that the claimants are the legal
heirs of the deceased Chandrakumar, who received fatal injuries in the accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
that had taken place on 21.12.2011. The first claimant gave the evidence as P.W.
1. P.W.2 is the co-employee of the deceased and was examined as eyewitness to
the incident. P.W.2 has clearly stated that the deceased Chandrakumar was a
Labour Contractor about 10 to 12 persons were working under him for
construction of building of an Engineer Ambrose. He deposed that at 09.00 p.m
on 21.12.2011, when the deceased rode his motorcycle on Karur-Trichy main
road from west to east direction, a maruti car, which was coming from the
opposite direction, hit against the motorcycle. In the impact, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and died subsequently. To corroborate the evidence
of P.W.2, the claimants produced Ex.P.1-Copy of the First Information Report and
Ex.P.5-Charge Sheet to show that the driver of the car faced criminal prosecution.
No contra evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents to substantiate there
case. Hence, the Tribunal has safely held that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the Maruti car. We find no reason to interfere with the
conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
12.We must also mention here that the finding of the Tribunal on
negligence is not seriously disputed, but the challenge in this appeal is only on
liability. It is the case of the appellant that on 19.07.2011 on receipt of a cheque,
issued for payment of premium for maruthi car, a policy was issued for a period
from 20.07.2011 to 19.07.2012. However, the cheque got dishonoured on
28.07.2011 for want of funds. It is the specific case of the appellant that the
dishonour of cheque was intimated to the insured. To prove the said contention,
they examined R.W.1 and marked the dishonoured cheque (Ex.R1), Intimation
from the Bank (Ex.R2), Intimation of dishonour of cheque to the insured (Ex.R3)
and the Cancellation of Policy (Ex.R4). The liability of the appellant was
disputed on two folds. Firstly on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was
sold by original owner Umadevi, but the policy was taken in her name. Secondly,
no premium was paid as the cheque issued towards payment of premium got
dishonoured and dishonour of the cheque and cancellation of policy was duly
intimated to the insured.
13.The issue arises for consideration in this case whether the registered
owner is still liable to satisfy the award after transfer of the vehicle has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
decided by the Apex Court, in the decisions referred infra, wherein, it has been
consistently held and observed that even after transfer of the vehicle, the
registered owner is liable to pay compensation.
(i) In (2001)8 SCC 748 (cited supra), it has been held as follows:-
“9.Mr. Iyer appearing for the Appellant submitted that
the High Court was wrong in ignoring the oral evidence on
record. He submitted that the oral evidence clearly showed that
the Appellant was not the owner of the car on the date of the
accident. Mr. Iyer submitted that merely because the name had
not been changed in the records of the R.T.O. did not mean that
the ownership of the vehicle had not been transferred. Mr. Iyer
submitted that the real owner of the car was Mr. Roy Thomas.
Mr. Iyer submitted that Mr. Roy Thomas had been made party
Respondent No.9 to these Appeals. He pointed out that an
Advocate had filed appearance on behalf of Mr. Roy Thomas
but had then applied for and was permitted to withdraw the
appearance. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had been
duly served and a public notice had also been issued. He
pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had chosen not to appear in
these Appeals. He submitted that the liability, if any, was of Mr.
Roy Thomas.
10.We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
right in holding that the Appellant continued to be the owner as
the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There
can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and
delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that
ownership of the car had been transferred. However the
Appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his
name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner. The
Appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr.
Roy Thomas in these Appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party
either before MACT or the High Court. In these Appeals we
cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability
between the Appellant and Mr. Roy Thomas. It will be for the
Appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Mr. Roy
Thomas if, in law, he is entitled to do so.”
(ii) The Apex Court in (2011)2 SCC 240 (cited supra), has held as follows:-
“14. The decision in Dr. T.V. Jose was rendered under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But having regard to the provisions
of section 2(30) and section 50 of the Act, as noted above, the
ratio of the decision shall apply with equal force to the facts of
the case arising under the 1988 Act. On the basis of these
decisions, the inescapable conclusion is that Jitender Gupta,
whose name continued in the records of the registering authority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
as the owner of the truck was equally liable for payment of the
compensation amount. Further, since an insurance policy in
respect of the truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified
and the claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd.
15. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted
that even though the registered owner of the vehicle was Jitender
Gupta, after the sale of the truck he had no control over it and the
possession and control of the truck were in the hands of the
transferee, Salig Ram. No liability can, therefore, be fastened on
Jitender Gupta, the transferor of the truck. In support of this
submission he relied upon a decision of this Court in National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC
16.The facts of the case in Deepa Devi are entirely
different. In that case the vehicle was requisitioned by the District
Magistrate in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under
the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In that circumstance,
this Court observed that the owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to
abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy
Commissioner. While the vehicle remained under requisition,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
the owner did not exercise any control over it: the driver might
still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he had to
drive the vehicle according to the direction of the officer of the
State, in whose charge the vehicle was given. Save and except the
legal ownership, the registered owner of the vehicle had lost all
control over the vehicle. The decision in Deepa Devi was
rendered on the special facts of that case and it has no application
to the facts of the case in hand.
17.In light of the discussion made above it is held that the
compensation amount is equally realisable from respondent no.3,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and it is directed to make full
payment of the compensation amount as determined by the
Claims Tribunal to the appellants within two months from the
date of this judgment.”
(iii) In (2018)3 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
13.The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from
the above decisions is that in view of the definition of the
expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name
the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the
Act, would be treated as the ‘owner’. However, where a person is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner.
Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase,
lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle
under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation such as
the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the
vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the
registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not
stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced
the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), making a
departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of
1939. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is
that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the
legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of
uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened
with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not
registered with the registering authority. To hold otherwise would
be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the
interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the
object of the law. In the present case, the First respondent was the
‘owner’ of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning
of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened
upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court
has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi.
14.The submission of the Petitioner is that a failure to
intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under Section
50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle. In Dr T V
Jose, this Court observed that there can be transfer of title by
payment of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the
purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the
records of the registering authority is the owner. The owner within
the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate
of the law must be fulfilled.”
14.The next issue that is to be decided in this appeal is whether the
dishonour of the cheque issued towards payment of premium will exonerate the
insurer, it's liability to indemnify the award to the third parties.
(i) In (1998)1 SCC 371 (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the
insurer to satisfy the award despite dishonour of the cheque and intimation of
cancellation of insurance policy on that account to the insured on public interest.
“9.We have, therefore, this position. Despite the bar created
by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus with out
receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the provisions
of Section 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act , the appellant
became liable to identify third parties in respect of the liability which
that policy covered and to satisfy awards of compensation in respect
thereof notwithstanding its entitlement (upon which we do not
express any opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that
the cheque issued in payment of the premium thereon had not been
honoured.
10.The policy of insurance that the appellant issued was a
representation upon which the authorities and third parties were
entitled to act. The appellant was not absolved of its obligations to
third parties under the policy because it did not receive the premium.
Its remedies in this behalf lay against the insured.
11.We may note in this connection the following massage in the
case of Montreal Street Railway Company vs.Normandin, A.I.R.1917
Privy Council 142;
''When the provisions of a statute relate to the
performance of a public duty and the case is such that
to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty
would work serious general inconvenience or injustice
go persons who have no control over those entrusted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
with the duty and at the same time would not promote
the main object of the Legislature, it has been the
practice to hold such provisions to be directory only,
the neglect of them, though punishable, not affecting
the validity of the acts done.'
12.It must also be noted that is was the appellant itself who was
responsible for its predicament. It had issued the policy of insurance
upon receipt only of a cheque towards the premium in contravention
of the provisions of Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act. The public
interest that a policy of insurance serves must, clearly, prevail over the
interest of the appellant.”
15. In the case of New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Rula and others
reported in (2000)3 SCC 195, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that if, on the
date of accident, there was a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in
question, the third party would have a claim against the Insurance Company and
the owner of the vehicle would have to be indemnified in respect of the claim of
that party. Subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy on the ground of non-
payment of premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the
third party.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
16.The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Malhotra
and others reported in (2001)3 SCC 151 has observed as under:-
“17.In a contract of insurance when an insurer gives a
cheque towards payment of premium or part of the premium, such
a contract consists of reciprocal promise. The drawer of the
cheque promises the insurer that the cheque, on presentation,
would yield the amount in cash. It cannot be forgotten that a
cheque is a Bill of Exchange drawn on a specified banker. A Bill
of Exchange is an instrument in writing containing an
unconditional order directing a certain person to pay a certain sum
of money to a certain person. It involves a promise that such
money would be paid.
18.Thus, when the insured fails to pay the premium
promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium
is returned dishonoured by the bank concerned the insurer need
not perform his part of the promise. The corollary is that the
insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such a
situation.
19.Under Section 25 of the Contract Act an agreement
made without consideration is void. Section 65 of the Contract
Act says that when a contract becomes void any person who has
received any advantage under such contract is bound to restore it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
to the person from whom he received it. So, even if the insurer has
disbursed the amount covered by the policy to the insured before
the cheque was returned dishonoured, insurer is entitled to get the
money back.
20.However, if the insured makes up the premium even
after the cheque was dishonoured but before the date of accident it
would be a different case as payment of consideration can be
treated as paid in the order in which the nature of transaction
required it. As such an event did not happen in this case the
insurance company is legally justified in refusing to pay the
amount claimed by the respondents.”
17.Following the ratio laid down in the case of Rula and others, Seema
Malhotra, in 2007, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deddappa and others vs. The
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2008)2 SCC 595,
has held as follows:-
“26. We are not oblivious of the distinction between the
statutory liability of the Insurance Company vis-`-vis a third party
in the context of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and its liabilities
in other cases. But the same liabilities arising under a contract of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
insurance would have to be met if the contract is valid. If the
contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have
been intimated thereabout, we are of the opinion, the insurance
company would not be liable to satisfy the claim.
27. A beneficial legislation as is well known should not be
construed in such a manner so as to bring within its ambit a
benefit which was not contemplated by the legislature to be given
to the party. In Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance
Corporation, Trichur v. Ramanuja Match Industries [AIR 1985 SC
278], this Court held :
"We do not doubt that beneficial legislations should have
liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative
intent but where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its
own there is no warrant for the Court to travel beyond the scheme
and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the
statutory benefit to those who are not covered by the scheme."
We, therefore, agree with the opinion of the High Court.
28. However, as the appellant hails from the lowest strata of
society, we are of the opinion that in a case of this nature, we
should, in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India, direct the Respondent No.1 to
pay the amount of claim to the appellants herein and recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle viz., Respondent No.2,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by
him. We direct accordingly.”
18.Approving the principles laid down in the above cases, in (2012)5 SCC
234 (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“26.In our view, the legal position is this: where the
policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer on
receipt of cheque towards the payment of premium and such
a cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of the
authorised insurer to indemnify the third parties in respect of
the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to
satisfy the award of compensation by reason of the provisions
of Section 147(5) and 149(1) of the MV Act unless the policy
of insurance is cancelled by the authorised insurer and
intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before
the accident. In other words, where the policy of insurance is
issued by an authorised insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt
of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets
dishonoured and before the accident of the vehicle occurs,
such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance and
sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
company's liability to indemnify the third parties which that
policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable
to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof.
27.Having regard to the above legal position, insofar as
the facts of the present are concerned, the owner of the bus
obtained the policy of insurance from the insurer for the
period 16.04.2004 to 15.04.2005 for which premium was
paid through cheque on 14.04.2004. The accident occurred
on 11.05.2004. It was only thereafter that the insurer
cancelled the insurance policy by communication dated
13.05.2004 on the ground of dishonour of cheque which was
received by the owner of the vehicle on 21.05.2004. The
cancellation of policy having been done by the insurer after
the accident, the insurer became liable to satisfy the award of
compensation passed in favour of the claimants.”
19.A similar view was taken in the subsequent judgment reported in
2016(2) TN MAC 520. Expect in the decision first cited above, in the subsequent
decisions, it has been clearly held that in the event of dishonour of cheque, which
was issued for payment of premium amount, if the policy was cancelled before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
the accident takes place, the insurer cannot be fastened the liability to satisfy the
award amount. In the case of intimation of cancellation of policy after the
accident, the insurer is liable to pay the award amount and permitted to recover
from the insured. In the case on hand, the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R4
would indicate that the cheque issued for payment of premium amount for the
offending vehicle was not honoured, however, there is nothing on record to prove
that before the accident, the cancellation of the policy was intimated to the
insured. Hence, in our considered view, the appellant Insurance Company is
liable to pay the award and thereafter, it can recover from the owner of the
vehicle.
20.It is true that the Division Bench of this Court in 2019(1) TN MAC
54(DB) (Andal vs. Avinav Kannan), determined the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.11,000/-. In our considered view, the Judgment is not helpful to
the case of the claimants in this case as it is factually distinguishable. In the case
referred by the learned counsel for the claimants, no income proof was filed and
notional income was arrived at following the decision of the Apex Court in Syed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014(1) TN MAC 459) and it was
held that the claimants are entitled for cost inflation index. But in the case on
hand, the employer of the deceased has given evidence as P.W.3. In the claim
petition itself, it is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month
and he died at the age of 27 years. P.W.3 has stated that the deceased was paid
Rs.450/- per day and for over time work his salary was increased from Rs.
15,000/- to Rs.18,000/-. The Tribunal on the basis of the testimony of P.W.3,
arrived the income at Rs.15,000/-. In our considered view, the amount is
excessive and it could be reasonable fixed at Rs.9,000/- per month, since we
noticed no documentary evidence was produced to corroborate the evidence of
P.W.3. Adding 40% towards future prospects, the income is assessed at Rs.
12,600/-, from which, ¼th is deducted towards personal and living expenses. His
contribution to the family comes to Rs.9,450/-, applying multiplier '17', the loss
of dependency is arrived at Rs.19,27,800/- (9450 x 12x 17).
21.Considering the relationship of the claimants with the deceased, Rs.
2,00,000/- is ordered towards loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and
filial consortium as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
Ram and others reported in (2018)2 TN MAC 452. In addition, Rs.30,000/- is
awarded for loss of estate and for funeral expenses. Accordingly, the amount
awarded by the Tribunal Rs.39,10,000/- is reduced to Rs.21,57,800/-, which is
rounded off Rs.21,60,000/-. In fine, the claimants are entitled for the modified
amount of Rs.21,60,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the
claim petition till the date of realization.
22.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The
appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the 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 and
thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The wife of the
deceased is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/-. The minor children are entitled to Rs.
4,00,000/- each. The mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/-. The
father of the deceased is entitled to Rs.1,60,000/-. The major claimants are
permitted to withdraw their share amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if
any, together with proportionate interest and costs. The share of the minor
claimants shall be deposited in any one of the nationalised banks, as fixed deposit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
under the Cumulative Deposit Scheme, till they attain majority and hand over the
fixed deposit certificates to the mother of the minor claimants. On attainment of
majority, the amount awarded to the minor claimants shall be disbursed to them
with accrued interest and cost. No costs.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [B.P.,J.]
23.07.2021
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 (Sub-Judge),
Devakottai.
2.V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
skn
C.M.A.(MD).No.896 of 2017
23.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
