Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs A.Santhanakumar on 6 October, 2021
C.M.A(MD)No.946 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
C.M.A(MD) No.946 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
National Insurance company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
No.378, Mint Street,
Chennai – 79. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.A.Santhanakumar
2.Ariyaselvi
3.S.Shanmugam ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehilces Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 21.10.2013
made in M.C.O.P.No.260 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal – I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For Respondents : No appearance
***
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.946 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award, dated
21.10.2013, made in M.C.O.P.No.260 of 2013, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal – I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1
and 2 herein are the claimants and the third respondent herein is the first
respondent in the original claim petition.
3.Brief substance of the petition in M.C.O.P.No.260 of 2013 is as
follows:-
On 06.11.2012, at about 11.30 p.m., when the deceased/Karuppasamy
was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Registration
No.TN-05-U-2009 along the Thoothukudi – Tiruchendur main road near old
kayal Aswini Prawn factory, a Torus lorry bearing Registration No.TN-03-
J-1357 that belonged to the first respondent was driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Due to that impact,
the deceased-Karuppasamy died on the spot. The petitioners are the dependents
of the deceased and they claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.946 of 2014
4.Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in
M.C.O.P.No.260 of 2013 is as follows:-
The rider of the two wheeler was not having a valid driving licence at
the time of accident and three persons travelled in the motor cycle. Hence, the
respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The age, income and profession
of the deceased are to be proved. The rider of the two wheeler drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. The claim
is excessive and the petition to be dismissed.
5.The first respondent was set ex-parte. Three witnesses were
examined and six documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. Three
witnesses were examined and four documents were marked on the side of the
second respondent.
6.The trial Court, after hearing both sides, has awarded a sum of
Rs.9,29,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Against the same, the second
respondent / Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.946 of 2014
7.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal ought to
have deducted half of the monthly salary of the deceased towards his personal
expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor at that time. The Tribunal ought to
have taken into account the age of the mother of the deceased for assessing the
loss of income The multiplier followed by the Tribunal is excessive and the
order is to be set aside.
8.On the side of the appellant, it is further stated that the deceased
was aged about 17 years and said to have worked as a salesman in a food stall.
The claimants are the parents of the deceased and the deceased was a self
employed person and 50% of the income is to be deducted for his own
expenses.
9. Name of the respondents was printed and called upon, though
sufficient opportunity was given, none appeared for the respondents. Hence, no
oral argument on the side of the respondents is recorded and the order is passed
on merits.
10. On the side of the appellant, it is argued that the deceased
travelled along two other persons in a two wheeler, which is in violation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.946 of 2014
policy conditions. From the evidence of P.W.2 and from Ex.P1 and Ex.P6, it is
clear that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the
lorry driver. No independent witness was examined on the side of the
appellant. Hence, it is decided that the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the lorry driver.
11. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the driver of the two
wheeler was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. Evidence
of R.W.3 is not sufficient enough to prove that the rider of the two wheeler was
not having valid driving licence. Moreover, the accident took place due to the
rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. There is no dispute regarding the
involvement of the lorry in the accident. The policy Ex.R3 was in force at the
time of accident. Hence, the appellant / Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation.
12.The Law is well settled, now the age of the claimants is not a
criteria to fix the multiplier. The age of the deceased is 17 years, hence,
multiplier '18' is applicable. The Tribunal has fixed the notional income as Rs.
4,500/- which is reasonable. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the
income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Hence, monthly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.946 of 2014
income is fixed at Rs.2,250/-. After including future prospects at 40%, the
monthly income is fixed at Rs.3,150/- (Rs.2,250/-+ Rs.900/- (40%) =
Rs.3,150/-). By applying multiplier '18', the loss of income is fixed at
Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.3,150/- X 12 X 18 = Rs.6,80,400/-). As per Pranay Sethi's
Case, the claimants are entitled for Rs.70,000/-, for conventional charges. In
total, the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,50,400/- as compensation and the same
is rounded off to Rs.7,50,000/-.
13.Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The
award, dated 21.10.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.260 of 2013, on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, is
hereby reduced from Rs.9,29,000/- to Rs.7,50,000/-. The appellant / Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of
deposit and with cost within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited. On such deposit being made,
the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as per the ratio
fixed by the Tribunal with proportionate interest after deducting any amount
received by them earlier. Excess amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to
the appellant / Insurance Company. The Claimants are not entitled for interest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.946 of 2014
for the default period, if there is any default. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ls
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 Accidents Claims Tribunal –
I Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
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.946 of 2014
R.THARANI.,J.
Ls
C.M.A(MD)No.946 of 2014
06.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
