Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs S.Selvi on 5 March, 2021
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.2502 & 6168 of 2020
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office No.3,
161-A, East Veli Street,
Madurai – 625 001. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.S.Selvi
2.Minor S.Varsion
3.G.Sakthivel
4.S.Chinnathal ... Respondents 1 to 4/
Petitioners 1 to 4
5.K.Palanichamy ... 5th Respondent/1st Respondent
(R- 2 is rep. by his
mother/first respondent)
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree, dated
23.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2017, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Palani.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/9
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.D.Venkatesh
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
Challenging the award, dated 23.09.2019 made in
M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Court, Palani, the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company
Limited with regard to quantum.
2.The claimants, who are the respondents 1 to 4, have filed a
claim petition claiming compensation for the death of one Senthil @
Senthil Kumar, who died in the accident that occurred on 09.08.2015.
The respondents 1 to 4 are the wife, child and parents of the deceased
Senthil @ Senthil Kumar.
3.The brief facts relevant for the consideration of the above case
are that on 09.08.2015, when the deceased was riding his two-
wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-57-AW-2156 at Palani-Dindigul
road, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-AM-1515, which was
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
driven by the fifth respondent/first respondent in a rash and negligent
manner, which was coming from the opposite direction, hit the
deceased. Immediately, he was admitted in Government Rajaji
Hospital, Madurai and subsequently, he died. Hence, the claimants
have filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
4.Resisting the claim petition, the second respondent/Insurance
Company has filed a counter affidavit contending that the accident had
occurred only due to the reckless act of the deceased and the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive
and without any basis.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and
P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side
of the appellant, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5
were marked.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the fifth respondent/first respondent
and that the deceased had sustained injuries and due to the impact,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
he died. The Tribunal further held that the appellant/Insurance
Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and had
awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- under various heads,
which is as follows:-
S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal
(Rs)
1. Loss of income 24,30,000/-
2. Loss of consortium of 40,000/-
the first respondent
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total Rs.25,00,000/-
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company would submit that relying on Ex.P.5, the Tribunal had fixed
the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month, which
is erroneous. The learned counsel would further submit that the
quantum awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants
would submit that the Tribunal had correctly awarded the
compensation under various heads and the same need not be
interfered with.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
10.A cursory reading of the award itself would show that the
monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is correct and
arrived at the compensation of Rs.24,30,000/- (Rs.18,000 X 12 X 15
= 32,40,000/-, after deducting 1/4th towards loss of income) towards
loss of income.
11.Further, the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation
on different conventional heads under the General Law and awarded
only scheduled amount on all such conventional heads when only
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent, a sum
of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate are awarded.
12.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in
2017(2) TN MAC 609(SC), so as to provide just compensation, held
that reasonable amount under the conventional heads like loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses quantifying the same
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Now, it is
undisputed proposition of law that though on all such conventional
heads, for decades together, the Courts were awarding good amount
of compensation upto Rs.3.5 Lacs, after the decision in Pranay
Sethi's case (cited supra), the claimants are certainly entitled to
atleast Rs.70,000/- on such conventional heads though at the relevant
time, Courts were awarding more than Rs.70,000/- in aggregate for
all such different conventional heads. Therefore, we see no merit in
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
13.The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% per
annum remains unaltered.
14.In the result,
(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed,
confirming the award, dated 23.09.2019 made in
M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Palani.
(ii) The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the award amount together with accrued interest
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
and costs to the credit of claim petition, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) On such deposit being made, the respondents
1, 3 and 4/claimants 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to withdraw
their share in the award amount as per the ratio of
apportionment made by the Tribunal together with
proportionate accrued interest and costs. The share of the
minor claimant/second respondent is permitted to be kept
in any of the Nationalised Bank in interest bearing fixed
deposits, initially for a period of three years, renewable
thereafter, till he attains majority and the guardian/first
respondent is permitted to withdraw the interest amount
from the above said fixed deposit, once in three months
and utilize the same for the welfare of the minor child.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
05.03.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
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/
Additional District Court,
Palani.
2.The V.R Section (Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
ps
C.M.A(MD)No.147 of 2020
05.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
