Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Sumithra on 3 September, 2021
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2016
The Branch Manager,
The United India Insurance co. Ltd.,
Buvaneswari Complex, Dr.Sankaran Road,
Namakkal – 637 001. ... Appellant
Vs
1.Sumithra
2.Minor Lakshmi
Rep. by N.F.Mother Sumithra
3.Muniyammal
4.Sembugam
5.Selvam Broilers (P) Ltd.,
No.46, Co-Operative Colony,
Gandhi Nagar,
Mohanuv Road,
Namakkal – 637 001. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree passed in MCOP.No.213 of
2014 on 29.06.2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special District Judge) at Krishnagiri
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2016
For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran
For Respondent 5 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the Insurance
company challenging the impugned award dated 29.06.2015 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge) at Krishnagiri in
MCOP.No.213 of 2014.
2. The Appellant insurance company has challenged the impugned
award on the following grounds (a) the Appellant Insurance Company is not
liable to pay compensation and (b) the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is excessive.
3. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
impugned award are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2016
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Future loss of income 12,96,000/-
Loss of consortium for the first 1,00,000/-
claimant who had lost her
husband at the age of 22 years
Loss of love and affection to the 1,00,000/-
minor claimant who had lost her
father at the age just 5 months
baby
Loss of love and affection to the 20,000/-
claimants 3 & 4 who had lost their
son in the evening of their life
Transport to hospital 10,000/-
Funeral Expenses 25,000/-
Total 15,51,000/-
4. Insofar as the first contention raised by the Appellant Insurance
Company questioning its liability is concerned, the same cannot be accepted
by this Court in view of the fact that no documentary evidence has been
produced by them before the Tribunal to prove that the driver of the vehicle
insured with the Appellant was under the influence of Alcohol. Further for
the fault of the driver of the insured vehicle, it cannot be inferred that the
deceased was also a tortfeasor who was the rider of the opposite motorcycle
bearing registration No. TN70-J-6288. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated
the evidence available on record and only thereafter, has held the Appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2016
Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the claimants. This Court
does not find any infirmity in the findings given by the Tribunal with regard
to the said contention.
5. Insofar as the second contention raised by the Appellant/Insurance
Company is concerned, the same also cannot be accepted by this Court for
the following reasons:
(a) The deceased Mani was a self employed person and the accident
happened in the year 2014 and the Tribunal has rightly fixed his notional
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- which cannot be considered
to be excessive even though, they have not produced any documentary
evidence before the Tribunal to prove the monthly income of the deceased
at the time of his death. Since the dependants namely, the wife, minor child
and the parents of the deceased are four in number, the Tribunal has rightly
deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has
also rightly adopted 16 multiplier as the deceased was aged 31 years at the
time of the accident. This Court, after giving due consideration to the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2016
of the accident and the age and avocation of the deceased at the time of the
accident, is of the considered view that the notional monthly income of the
deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- and the assessment of the
future loss of income by rightly adopting 16 multiplier and also by rightly
deducting ¼ towards personal expenses of the deceased at Rs.12,96,000/-
(9000 – ¼ = 6750 x 12 = 81000 x 16) cannot be considered to be excessive
and the same is confirmed by this court.
(b) The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased, Rs.1,00,000/-
towards the loss of love and affection to the child of the deceased and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased, though may be on the
higher side, but the Tribunal having not awarded any compensation towards
future prospects to the claimants, the total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the impugned award cannot be considered to be excessive as
alleged by the Appellant Insurance company.
6. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. The Appellant Insurance Company and the fifth respondent are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2016
directed to deposit the entire award amount, jointly or severally, after
deducting the amount already deposited if any, together with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of deposit and
costs to the credit of MCOP.No.213 of 2014 within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being
made, the Tribunal shall transfer the respective share of award amount lying
to the credit of MCOP.No.213 of 2014 to the bank account of the
respondents 1, 3 & 4 through RTGS within a period of one week thereafter.
Since the second respondent is a minor, her respective share of award
amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.213 of 2014 shall be deposited in
interest bearing fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks till she
attains majority and her mother, the first respondent herein is permitted to
withdraw the interest accrued once in six months, for the welfare of the
minor. If she attains the age of majority, it will open for her file a formal
petition to declare her as a major.
03.09.2021
nl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2016
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To
1. The Special District Judge) at Krishnagiri
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2016
03.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
