Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. ... vs Soundaravalli ... 1St
2021 Latest Caselaw 11589 Mad

                                                                       C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2013

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED : 14.06.2021

                                                  CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

                                           C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2013
                                                     and
                                             M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

                Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                Sriram Centre,
                Ground Floor, B.B.Chavady,
                Theni Main Road, Madurai.              ... Appellant / 2nd Respondent


                                                Vs.

                1.Soundaravalli                        ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner
                2.M/s.Poorna Sri Minerals,
                   No.1/11-A, SF.No.27/12,
                  Rajakambeeram,
                  Othakadi, Madurai 625 107.           ... 2nd Respondent / 1st respondent


                Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
                Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 15.10.2012, made in
                M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -
                Additional District Judge, Ramnad and allow this civil miscellaneous appeal.




                1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2013




                                   For appellant    : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
                                   For R1           : Mr.P.Vairavasundaram
                                   For R2           : No appearance


                                                       JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Additional District Judge, Ramanad, in

M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2011, dated 15.10.2012.

2.The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent

herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent

in M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2011. The claimant filed a petition claiming a sum of

Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) as compensation for the death of her

mother in a road accident.

3.Brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2011, is

as follows:

The mother of the claimant, viz., Kamatchiammal, was working in a

Rice Mill and was getting a salary of Rs.7,500/-(Rupees Seven Thousand and

Five Hundred only) per month. On 01.06.2010, at about 7.15 a.m., a vehicle

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2013

bearing Registration No.TN-59-AJ-6933, TATA -707 was driven by its driver in

a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased – Kamatchiammal.

She was admitted in Madurai Rajaji Hospital and on 03.06.2010, she died due

to the injuries. A case in Crime No.61 of 2010 was registered against the driver

of the Van. The claimant is the only daughter of the deceased and she claims a

sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) as compensation from the

respondents.

4.Counter filed by the second respondent (appellant herein), in

M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2011, is as follows:-

The van driver drove the vehicle in a moderate speed, observing all

the road rules. It was the deceased, who invited the accident. Without

observing the traffic, she crossed the road and met with the accident. There is

no document to prove that the claimant is the legal heir of the deceased-

Kamatchiammal. The claim is excessive.

5.After hearing both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of

Rs.3,71,400/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy One Thousand and Four Hundred

only) as compensation to the claimant. Against the same, the Appellant /

Insurance Company has filed this Appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2013

6.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there is no necessity for

the Insurance Company to pay any compensation to the claimant. There is no

proof of dependency. The claimant, being a married daughter, cannot be a

dependent of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 60 years and the

multiplier applied by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed the award to be set

aside.

7.On the basis of the evidence of P.W.2 and on the basis of Ex.P1-

F.I.R., Ex.P-3- Rough Sketch, Ex.P4-Observation Mahazer, Ex.P35- Motor

Vehicle Inspection Report, Ex.P6-Charge Sheet, the Tribunal decided that the

accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver. The

decision of the Tribunal, on the basis of these documents, is correct.

8.It is seen that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by her in the

accident and the Death Certificate was marked as Ex.P2. The legal heir ship

certificate of the claimant was marked as Ex.P8. Hence, it is proved that the

claimant is the daughter of the deceased. The salary certificate of the deceased

was marked as Ex.P9. The age of the deceased was fixed as 60 years and the

Tribunal fixed the quantum on the basis of the age of the deceased and on the

basis of the Income Certificate. The quantum fixed by the Tribunal is correct.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2013

9.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the claimant being a

married woman, may not be a dependent of her mother. A daughter is a

Class – I heir and she is entitled for claiming compensation and the Law on the

above issue is well settled. In the above circumstances, the contention of the

appellant / Insurance Company is not sustainable.

11.Considering the above reasons, there is nothing sufficient enough

to interfere in the order of the Tribunal. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal – Additional District Judge, Ramanad, in M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2011,

dated 15.10.2012, is hereby confirmed.

12.The appellant / Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the

entire award amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of deposit and costs within a period of eight weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount if already

deposited by the appellant. On such deposit being made, the first respondent /

claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount, less the amount if

already withdrawn. The Claimant is not entitled for interest for the default

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2013

period if there is any default. No costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

14.06.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Ls

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Additional District Judge, Ramanad.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2013

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2013

R.THARANI.,J.

Ls

C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2013

14.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/