Madras High Court
M/S.Reliance General Insurance ... vs V. Elizabeth on 22 September, 2021
C.M.A.No.2727 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2727 of 2017
and
CMP No.15354 of 2017
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Reliance House, 6th Floor,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006. .... Appellant
Versus
G. Vijaya Thanapal (Since died)
1. V. Elizabeth
2. V. Evangelin Annaberyl
3. Ebenezer Paul
(Amendment carried out as per
order in MP No.2962 of 2012
dated 10.01.2013)
4. G. Rangadurai .... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 16.02.2017 made
in MCOP No.2700 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.S. Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.C. Munusamy for R1
R2 to R4 – Served – No appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
C.M.A.No.2727 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Heard video conference)
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging
the Award dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MCOP No.2700 of 2012.
2. Heard Mr.S. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant /
Insurance Company and Mr.C. Munusamy, learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent. Despite service of notice on the 2nd to 4th respondents, there
is no representation on their side.
3. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award
before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant /Insurance Company has challenged the impugned
award on the following grounds :
a) There was no nexus between the case of the death
of G. Vijaya Thanapal and the accident which happened on
21.04.2012. According to the appellant, the deceased did
not die as a result of the injuries sustained by him due to the
accident which happened on 21.04.2012.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2727 of 2017
b) The quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is excessive.
5. With regard to the first contention raised by the appellant, the
Tribunal has rightly rejected the same by giving the following reasons :-
The Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW1 and Exs.P3 and
P4, the Discharge summaries and Ex.P5-Medical bills amounting to
Rs.11,48,177.50 and also given due consideration to the fact that the
deceased died within three months from the date of the accident. As
seen from the discharge summaries issued by the hospital, ever since the
date of the accident, the deceased has been continuously getting medical
treatment as an inpatient in the hospital. Only three days prior to the date
of the death, the deceased was discharged from the hospital. After
considering the evidence available on record and the nature of injuries
sustained by the deceased and his continuous period of hospitalisation, it
can be inferred that the death has happened only due to the injuries
sustained by him due to the accident.
6. Insofar as the second contention raised by the appellant with
regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
concerned excepting for modification of the compensation awarded by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2727 of 2017
Tribunal under the heads loss of consortium, loss of love and affection,
loss of estate and funeral expenses are concerned, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of pecuniary benefits at
Rs.3,63,972/- and Rs.11,48,200/- towards medical expenses cannot be
considered to be excessive as it has been awarded only in accordance
with the medical bills provided by the claimants which have been marked
as Exhibits before the Tribunal and the avocation and the age of the
deceased as well as the year of the accident.
7. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
loss of consortium at Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, it is on the higher side
as it is not in accordance with settled law which fixes the same at
Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, this Court reduces the compensation from
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium.
8. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
loss of love and affection at Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, it is also on the
higher side and it has to be reduced, since there are only two children to
the deceased, who are each entitled to Rs.40,000/- in accordance with
settled law. Therefore, this Court reduces the compensation towards loss
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2727 of 2017
of love and affection to Rs.80,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- erroneously
fixed by the Tribunal.
9. Similarly, the Tribunal has awarded a higher compensation of
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate though the claimants are only entitled
to Rs.15,000/- as per the settled law. Accordingly, this Court reduces the
compensation towards loss of estate from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.
10. Similarly, the Tribunal has awarded a higher compensation
towards funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/-, which is not in accordance with
the settled law. In accordance with the settled law, this Court reduces the
compensation towards funeral expenses to Rs.15,000/- instead of
Rs.25,000/- erroneously fixed by the Tribunal.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the award of the Tribunal is hereby
modified in the following manner :
Heads Amount awarded Amount reduced
by the Tribunal by this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of Pecuniary Benefits 3,63,972/- 3,63,972/-
Loss of Consortium 1,00,000/- 40,000/-
Loss of Love and affection 1,00,000/- 80,000/-
* Rs.40,000/- each *
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2727 of 2017
Heads Amount awarded Amount reduced
by the Tribunal by this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of Estate 50,000/- 15,000/-
Medical expenses 11,48,200/- 11,48,200/-
Funeral expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-
Total 17,87,172/- 16,62,172/-
12. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant / Insurance
Company, stands partly allowed by reducing the compensation from
Rs.17,87,172/- to Rs.16,62,172/- as indicated above. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13a. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
reduced award amount, as assessed by this Court together with interest at
7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, less
the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of MCOP No.2700 of
2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (II Court of
Small Causes), Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is made clear that the appellant /
Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw excess amount, if any paid
by them.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2727 of 2017
13b.On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to
transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the respondents
1,2 and 3 /claimants, as per the same ratio of apportionment made by the
Tribunal, through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
22.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 104.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2727 of 2017
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
C.M.A.No.2727 of 2017
22.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
