Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Chandra :1St on 25 November, 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.257 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD)No.257 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Through its
Branch Manager,
No.16, K.J.R Complex,
North Veli Street,
Madurai 625 001. :Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Chandra :1st Respondents/1st Petitioner
2.M.Subburaj :2nd Respondent/2nd
Petitioner
3.M.Puvaneswari :3rd Respondent/3rd Petitioner
(R2 & R3 are declared as majors and
guardianship of their mother is discharged
vide Court order dated 26.10.2021 made in
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4728 & 4729 of 2021)
4.Lakshmi Ammal :4th Respondent/4th Petitioner
5.J.Srinivasan :5th Respondent/1st Respondent
6.J.Govindaraj :6th Respondent/3rd Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A.(MD)No.257 of 2015
7.The National Insurance Company Limited,
Though its
Branch Manager,
No.19, Officer's Line
Opposite to Lakshmi Theatre
Vellore. :7th Respondent/4th Respondent
8.R.Rajeswari :8th Respondent/5th Respondent
9.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Through its
Branch Manager,
No.F-4, Visitors Road,
Block-2,
Neyveli. :9th Respondent/6th Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1114 of
2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions
Judge (PCR), Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Ramachandran
For R1 to R4 : Mr.Sankara Pandian
For R7 : Mr.J.S.Murali
For R5, R6, R8 & R9 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/8
C.M.A.(MD)No.257 of 2015
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company to set aside
the judgment and decree, dated 10.07.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1114 of 2003 by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions Judge
(PCR), Madurai.
2.The facts of the case is that the accident, which took place on
16.04.2002 at about 9.30 p.m., when the deceased was attending puncture work in
a lorry belonging to the fifth respondent, a lorry belonging to the 6th respondent
bearing Registration No.TAJ 5577 came from Trichy to Madras driven by its driver
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry in which the deceased
was carrying out the puncture work. Due to which, the deceased was succumbed to
injuries. The dependents of the deceased has filed a claim petition in
M.C.O.P.No114 of 2003 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [III
Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR)], Maduai, seeking compensation.
3.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants two witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8
and on the side of the respondent one witness was examined as R.W.1 and one
document was marked as Ex.R.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.257 of 2015
4.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidences and the arguments advanced on either side and also on appreciating the
evidences on record, held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and directed the second and fourth
respondents therein to pay compensation in the ratio of 25% and 75% respectively.
Aggrieved over the order of the Tribunal, the second respondent/Insurance
Company has filed the present C.M.A.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
contended that the future prospects fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and
the Tribunal ought to have fixed future prospects at the rate of 40% as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609(SC) in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others. The learned
counsel further submitted that there is no signal or reflector light on the rear side
of the lorry belonging to the fifth respondent and as there was no pleadings in the
claim application, 25% liability fixed on the driver of the lorry belonging to the
fifth respondent for the alleged accident. Hence, he prays to modify the award of
the Tribunal.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.257 of 2015
7.Even though there is no direct evidence on the side of the
respondents/claimants to prove the income of the deceased, the deceased was
earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal, considering all these aspects and
considering the age of the deceased, fixed monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, there is no error in the reasoning arrived at by the
Tribunal for fixing the notional income. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded 50%
of future prospects.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently
contended that as per the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in
Pranay Sethi's case, awarded 40% enhancement towards future prospects.
Therefore, the award granted by the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the
future aspects is reduced from 50% to 40% and the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.3,000/- + 40% = Rs.4,200/- and also considering the dependency of
the deceased, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th and the net income of the deceased would
be arrived at Rs.3,150/- per month and the loss of income is Rs.3,150/- x 12 x 16
=Rs.6,04,800/-. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal stands
revised from Rs.6,86,000/- to Rs.Rs.6,42,800/- in the manner stated below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.257 of 2015
S.No. Description Awarded by
Amount awarded by this Court
Tribunal This Court
1. Loss of Income Rs.6,48,000/- Rs.6,04,800/- (Modified)
2. Loss of love and Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- (Confirmed)
affection (each
petitioner Rs.5,000)
3. Funeral Expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- (Confirmed)
4. Transport Charge Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- (Confirmed)
5. Loss of Consortium Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- (Confirmed)
6. Loss of Estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- (Confirmed)
Rs.6,86,000/- Rs.6,42,800/- (Reduced)
Total Compensation
On all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal remains unaltered.
9.In view of the above, the judgment and decree of the trial Court
passed in M.C.O.P.No.1114 of 2003 are modified and the compensation is reduced
from Rs.6,86,000/- to Rs.6,42,800/- and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed
in part. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified amount of
Rs.6,42,800/-, if already not deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
On such deposit, the respondents/claimants 1 to 4 are entitled to withdraw their
shares with accrued interests, as apportioned by the Tribunal, by filing necessary
application before the Tribunal. The excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.257 of 2015
appellant/Insurance Company. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
25.11.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Ns
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Additional District and
Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.
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.257 of 2015
S.ANANTHI, J.
Ns
C.M.A.(MD)No.257 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
25.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
