Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs K.Danalakshmi on 21 June, 2021
CMA(MD)No.1208 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 21.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
C.M.A(MD)No.1208 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2015
The Managing Director,
M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Salem. .. Appellant
vs.
1.K.Danalakshmi
2.Minor Mohanaguru
3.Minor Gokulasri
(R2 & R3 are rep. by their
Mother, the first respondent)
4.T.Rajamani
5.Venkatesh Reddy
...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside fair and decretal order dated 10.10.2013
and made in MCOP No.284 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Dindigul.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1208 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For Respondents : Mr.G.Gomathisankar (for R1 to R4)
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dindigul, in MCOP No.284 of 2011 dated 10.10.2013.
2.The facts in brief are that the claimants are the wife and minor
children and mother of the deceased T.Varatharajan. On 28.12.2010 at
09.15 p.m, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration
No.TN-57-F-6096 on Madurai to Karur main road and when he was near
Anjali Roundana, a maruthi car bearing Reg. No.AK-51-P-3323, which
came from the opposite direction, rammed his vehicle. Due to the
impact, he sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to the City
Hospital, Dindigul and therefrom, he was admitted to Hana Josep
Hospital, Madurai. He took treatment from 29.12.2010 and breath his
last on 05.01.2011. It is the case of the claimants that the accident had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1208 of 2014
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the maruthi car and hence,
they are entitled to pay compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.
3.The appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim petition
disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the
deceased and the entitlement of the claimants seeking compensation. It is
specifically stated that the deceased drove the vehicle in violation of
traffic rules and hence, the negligence cannot be fixed on the driver of
the car.
4.The claimants and the Insurance company have let in oral and
documentary evidence to substantiate their case. The Tribunal, after
analyzing the evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the car and awarded compensation of Rs.
25,19,150/- together with interest at 9% per annum. Challenging the
same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance
Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1208 of 2014
5.Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that there is no pleading with regard to the
diversion of traffic at the relevant point of time, but only after seeing the
counter filed by the appellant that the accident had taken place on the
wrong side of the road, they have let in evidence that there was traffic
diversion. Even though the eyewitness examined on behalf of the
appellant has stated that there was traffic diversion, no material was
placed before the Tribunal. It is his submission that since the deceased
was also contributed to the accident, the entire liability cannot be fixed
on the driver of the offending vehicle.
6.Per contra, Mr.G.Gomathisankar, learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants made submissions justifying the conclusion
reached by the Tribunal.
7.Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing on
either side and perused the materials available on records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1208 of 2014
8.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased
T.Varadharajan met with an accident on 28.12.2010 and succumbed due
to the injuries on 05.11.2011. It is equally not disputed that the claimants
are the legal heirs of the deceased. According to the claimants, when the
deceased Varadharajan was proceeding in a motorcycle at 09.15 p.m on
28.12.2010, the offending vehicle, which was coming from the opposite
direction, came in a high speed and hit against the motorcycle. P.W.2 is
the eyewitness to the incident and he has spoken about the manner of the
accident in his evidence.
9.It is true that in the counter, it is stated that the accident occurred
due to the negligence of the deceased. P.W.2 has stated that at the time of
accident, due to heavy traffic, there was a diversion and when the
deceased was proceeding as per the direction of the police, the accident
had taken place, but there is no specific plea in the claim petition. It is
pertinent to note that witnesses examined on the side of the appellant
themselves have deposed that due to heavy traffic, traffic diversion was
made at the time of accident. So, we find no force in the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1208 of 2014
10.Perusal of records reveal that the deceased died at the age of 47
years and he was working as Grade I Police Constable. P.W.3 Office
Assistant from the Office of the District Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul, has produced Service Register and Salary Slip, which show
that the deceased was appointed on 29.07.1964 and he was drawing Rs.
16,545/- per month. The Tribunal by adding 30% towards future
prospects fixed salary at Rs.21,508/- and applying multiplier '13',
awarded Rs.22,64,808/- towards loss of income. That apart, Rs.
2,19,350/- was awarded towards medical expenses based on Ex.P.8; Rs.
10,000/- for loss of consortium to the first claimant; Rs.20,000/- for loss
of love and affection to the minor claimants and Rs.5,000/- was awarded
towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.
25,19,150/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In our
opinion, the award of the Tribunal is fair and reasonable and does not
warrant any interference. Hence, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
However, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year
2010, the interest alone is reduced from 9% to 7.5%.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1208 of 2014
11.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with
the above modification. It is represented that the appellant Insurance
Company has already deposited the entire award amount along with
interest and cost. Therefore, the major 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
share of the minor claimants shall be deposited in any one of the
nationalised banks, as fixed deposit 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. The excess amount, if any, be
returned to the Insurance Company. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [B.P.,J.]
21.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1208 of 2014
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District and Sessions Judge),
Dindigul.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1208 of 2014
K.KALYANASUNDARAM.,J
and
B.PUGALENDHI., J
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.1208 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2015
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
