Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Leelavathi on 8 October, 2021
C.M.A. No.2941 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A. No.2941 of 2021
and CMP.No.16816 of 2021
The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Motor T.P.Claims, No.6, Haddows Road,
Opposite Sasthri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34. ...appellant
Vs.
1. Mrs.Leelavathi
2. Minor S.Dinakaran
3. Minor S.Banu Prasad
(2 & 3 rep. by their mother and next friend Leelavathi)
4. Nagammal
5. Jayaraman
6. Jayasuriya ...respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 27.11.2020
passed in MCOP.No.34 of 2019, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court MCOP Cases No.1, Tiruvallur.
For Appellant : M/s.C.Bhuvanasundari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/8
C.M.A. No.2941 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered V.SIVAGNANAM, J]
The appeal is heard through video conferencing.
2. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Special District Court MCOP Cases No.1, Tiruvallur in
MCOP.No.34 of 2019.
3. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased
Sudhakar. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants that on
09.01.2019 at about 9.00 pm, the deceased Sudhakar was riding his Motor
Cycle (Splendor) bearing Registration No.TN-20-BH-2938 on Tiruvallur-
Tiruttani Main Road. When he was nearing Pandur Government Higher
Secondary School at Tiruvallur, a Car bearing Registration No.TN-12-S-
6997, belonging to the sixth respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, came in the opposite direction at a high speed and dashed
against the Motor Cycle of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased
sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claimants laid a
claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/8
C.M.A. No.2941 of 2021
4.The Insurance Company resisted the claim petition by filing counter
statement, in which, it is stated that the deceased was responsible for the
accident and hence, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. They
also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the first claimant
gave evidence as PW1 and also examined 3 other witnesses as PWs.2 to 4
and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no oral and
document evidence was adduced.
6. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence produced by the
claimants, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car. By coming to such
conclusion, the Tribunal passed an award for a compensation of
Rs.25,09,200/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum and directed the
appellant/Insurance Company to pay the above compensation. Questioning
the award, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company that the deceased drove his motorcycle at a
high speed and tried to overtake a Lorry without seeing the Car coming in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/8
C.M.A. No.2941 of 2021
the opposite direction and while doing so, he dashed against the Car. The
accident occurred only due to the rash driving of the deceased, hence, it is
wrong to fix the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the Car. He
further added that the monthly income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal
is on the higher side and it has not followed the legal precedents of the
Hon'ble Apex Court while arriving at the quantum.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company and perused the materials available on record.
9. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined one
Arunkumar PW2, who is the eyewitness of the accident and he had clearly
deposed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the Car. The appellant/Insurance Company neither
disproved the evidence of PW2, nor produced any evidence to fix liability
on the side of the deceased. Hence, this Court is of the view that the
Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the driver of the Car is
responsible for the accident and hence, it's insurer, viz., the
appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/8
C.M.A. No.2941 of 2021
10. With regard to the quantum, the claimants produced Ex.P15 a
copy of Muster Roll Register and Ex.P14 a copy of Salary Certificate, to
show that the deceased was working as a Quality Assistant and earning
Rs.15,570/-. The Tribunal, after deducting, PF, ESI and Advance, had
rightly fixed Rs.12,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the
Tribunal by taking Rs.12,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and
adding 40% towards future prospects, arrived Rs.16,800/- [12,000 + 4,800]
towards loss of monthly income. Since the number of dependents of the
deceased is 5, 1/4th of the income was deducted towards personal expenses
and thus the loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.12,600/- [16,800 –
4,200]. Then, by applying multiplier “16”, the loss of annual income of the
deceased was arrived at Rs.24,19,200/- [12,600 x 16 x 12]. In addition to
that, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Estate;
Rs.40,000/- towards Loss of Consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral
Expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards Transport Expenses. In total, the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,09,200/- as compensation along with
interest at 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. In
our considered view, the award of the Tribunal is fair and reasonable, which
does not warrant any interference by this Court. In fine, the award of the
Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/8
C.M.A. No.2941 of 2021
11.In such view of the matter, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is dismissed as devoid of merits. The appellant/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs,
less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the
claimants 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their share as apportioned by
the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with
proportionate interest and costs. Insofar as the minor claimants 2 & 3 are
concerned, their respective shares shall be deposited by the Tribunal in any
Fixed Deposit Scheme in any one of the Nationalised Banks and it shall be
renewed periodically till they attain majority and the interest accrued
thereon shall be withdrawn by the first claimant/mother, once in three
months. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
[M.K.K.S, J] [V.S.G., J]
08.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/No
pvs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/8
C.M.A. No.2941 of 2021
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court MCOP Cases No.1, Tiruvallur
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/8
C.M.A. No.2941 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
pvs
C.M.A. No.2941 of 2021
08.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.8/8
