The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Shimla
2021 Latest Caselaw 5268 Mad

                                                                           C.M.A.No.584 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 01.03.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                               C.M.A. No.584 of 2021
                                             and C.M.P.No.3587 of 2021

                   The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                   P.O. No.172,
                   No.261, Jawaharlal Nehru Street,
                   Pondicherry.                                                   .. Appellant

                                                          Vs.

                   O.C.Madhavan (died)
                   1.M.Shimla
                   2.K.Sheela
                   3.Persiskala
                   (amended as per order in
                   I.A.No.73/2015, dated 02.06.2015)
                   4.B.Murugan                                                  .. Respondents

                   Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
                   Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2016, made
                   in M.C.O.P. No.346 of 2004, on the file of the III Additional District Court,
                   (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Salem.


                   ___
                   1/8




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                C.M.A.No.584 of 2021



                                         For Appellant       : Mr.D.Bhaskaran


                                                 JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the

Tribunal in the award dated 27.04.2016, made in M.C.O.P. No.346 of 2004,

on the file of the III Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal), Salem.

2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.346 of 2004, on

the file of the III Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal), Salem. The deceased O.C.Madhavan/claimant filed the said claim

petition, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for his grandson

viz., minor SriSai who died in the accident that took place on 03.09.2002.

Pending claim petition, the claimant O.C.Madhavan died and respondents 1

to 3 were impleaded as his legal heirs.

___

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.584 of 2021

3.According to the respondents 1 to 3, on the date of accident, when

the deceased minor SriSai along with his parents Muthukumar and Lalitha

were traveling in an Ambassidor Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-3555 on

Thindivanam Main Road, near Molasur Village, the driver of a Lorry bearing

Registration No.TN-28-1404 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the Car and caused the accident. In the accident, the

deceased minor SriSai sustained fatal injuries and died in Hospital on

05.09.2002. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by

driver of the Lorry. Hence, one O.C.Madhavan/claimant filed the said claim

petition, claiming compensation against the 4th respondent as owner and

appellant as insurer of the offending vehicle. Pending claim petition, the said

O.C.Madhavan died and his legal heirs viz., respondents 1 to 3 were

impleaded as claimants 2 to 4. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral

and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash

and negligent driving by driver of the Lorry belonging to the 4th respondent

and directed the appellant as well as the 4th respondent to jointly and severally

pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3.

___

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.584 of 2021

4.Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in

the award dated 27.04.2016, made in M.C.O.P. No.346 of 2004, the appellant

- Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company

contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the respondents 1 to 3 cannot

be treated as dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal without adjudicating

the issue related to dependency, erroneously awarded compensation under the

head, loss of dependency. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal to

the respondents 1 to 3 is unsustainable and prayed for setting aside the award

of the Tribunal.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance

Company through video conference and perused the materials available on

record.

7.It is the main contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the

respondents 1 to 3, who are the paternal aunts of the deceased, are not entitled

___

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.584 of 2021

to compensation under the head loss of dependency, as they are not the

dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal considering the judgment of the

Hon'ble Calcutta High Court reported in 2010 ACJ 401 [Sarama Das and

others Vs. Bhutnath Ghorui and another] and the judgment of this Court

reported in 2016 (1) TNMAC 453 (DB) [The Branch Manager, ICICI

Lombard General Insurance Company, Mumbai Vs. Kaliamoorthy and three

others], wherein it has been held that the married sisters are also legal

representatives of the deceased, irrespective of the fact that they are financially

depending upon the deceased or not and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

which holds that the legal representatives cannot be interpreted to mean only

'dependents', held that even though the respondents 1 to 3 are not direct

dependents of the deceased, they are entitled to compensation and awarded a

lumpsum amount of Rs.60,000/- to the respondents 1 to 3, which is in order.

There is no error in the award of the Tribunal, warranting interference by this

Court.

8.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the

amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.60,000/- together with interest at the

___

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.584 of 2021

rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is

confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company as well as the 4th respondent

are jointly and severally directed to deposit the award amount along with

interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of

M.C.O.P. No.346 of 2004. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3 are

permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, along with

proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the

Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing

necessary applications before the Tribunal. It is made clear that the

respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled for any interest for the delay period viz.,

from 14.03.2008 to 25.11.2011 and from 23.08.2012 to 10.02.2015, as held

by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

No costs.

01.03.2021

Index : Yes/No gsa

___

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.584 of 2021

To

1.The III Additional District Judge, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Salem.

2.The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court, Madras.

___

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.584 of 2021

V.M.VELUMANI, J.,

gsa

C.M.A. No.584 of 2021

01.03.2021

___

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