Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shanthi on 1 March, 2021
CMA No.3 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 01.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA.No.3 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch Office-1, First Floor, Hosur main Road,
Madhiwala, Bangalore 560 068. ... Appellant/2nd respondent
Vs.
1. Shanthi
2. Minor Mekala
3. Minor Sankar
Minors are rep by next friend and first petitioner
Shanthi)
4. Chinnamma
5. Ponnusamy ... Respondents 1 to 5/ claimants
6. P.Subramani ... 6th respondent/ first respondent
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and
judgment dated 23.05.2006 passed in MCOP No.91 of 2004 by the
District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3 of 2013
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For respondents 1 to5 : No appearance
For 6th respondent : No such person
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the
insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging the
quantum of compensation.
2. The claimants have filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one
P.Madhu, husband of the first claimant; father of the second and third
claimants; and son of the fourth and fifth claimants, in a road accident
that took place on 14.01.2004.
3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows: The
deceased was working as a Head Constable in Tamil Nadu Police
Service at Thoppur Police Station. On 14.01.2004, the deceased was
standing on the left side mud portion of the road, near Thoppur Check
Pose and was regulating traffic and at about 4.00 a.m. a speedy lorry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3 of 2013
bearing registration No.KA-01-D-9612 came from Dharmapuri towards
Salem, hit the deceased and ran over him, thereby he sustained crush
injuries on his right hip, thigh and he was taken to Government Head
Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri, however, he succumbed to the injuries.
According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of the
driver(first respondent) of the lorry was the cause of accident and since
the first respondent/ owner of the vehicle insured his lorry with the
second respondent/ insurance company, both of them are liable to pay
compensation.
4. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance
company by filing counter affidavit.
5. Before Tribunal, the first claimant and two other
witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 respectively and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P11 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no oral and
documentary evidence was adduced.
6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3 of 2013
awarded a sum of Rs.12,77,000/- as compensation to the claimants
under various heads as extracted hereunder.
Sl Heads Amount in
No Rs.
1 Loss of dependency to the 11,52,000
claimants(8000 x 12= 96,000 - 1/3=
64,000x18)
2 Loss of consortium to first claimant 25,000
3 Loss of love and affection to the first 25,000
claimant
4 Loss of love and affection to the 50,000
second and third Rs.25,000/- each
5 Loss of Love and affection to the 20,000
fourth and fifth claimant Rs.10,000/-
each
7 Funeral expenses 5,000
Total 12,77,000
Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
insurance company has filed the present appeal to scale down the
compensation.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and I have
perused the materials on record.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3 of 2013
insurance company submitted that the deceased was aged 39 years,
however, the Tribunal has erred in adopting multiplier '18' instead of
'16' . He also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded huge amount of
Rs.1,25,000/- towards conventional damages and therefore, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be scaled down.
9. Now the point for consideration is whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be scaled down.
10. Point
It is admitted fact that the deceased Madhu was a Head
Constable in the Police Department and was aged 39 years on the date
of accident. The Tribunal has perused the salary certificate Ex.P9 and
after considering the remaining service, that would have been served by
the deceased, has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.8,000/-. Further, considering the various factors and after analysing
the materials on record, the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable
compensation as extracted above. The only point to be considered by
this case is, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is '18' which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3 of 2013
wrong, and as per the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme
Court in Sarla Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it should be '16'.
However, no amount was added to the income of the deceased towards
" Future Prospects" and no amount was awarded towards, " Loss of
estate", as per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC),.
Therefore, this court is of the view that the findings of the Tribunal
does not warrant any interference by this court and the appeal fails. The
point is answered accordingly.
11. In the result
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. No costs.
The connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
(ii) The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit
the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal with accrued interest,
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less the amount if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3 of 2013
already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
(iii) On such deposit being made by the insurance
company, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same, as per the
apportionment made by the Tribunal, after following due process of
law.
01.03.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/non Speaking order
mst
To
1. The District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch Office-1, First Floor, Hosur main Road,
Madhiwala, Bangalore 560 068.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3 of 2013
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mst
CMA. No.3 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
01.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
