Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs M.Perumal on 7 April, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A(MD)No.553 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6615 of 2019
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,,
Divisional Office,
Anguvilas Building,
North Car Street,
Nagercoil. :Appellant/Respondent No.2
.vs.
1.M.Perumal
2.Selvi
3.Uma Nath :Respondents/Petitioners
4.T.Lawrence :Respondent/Respondent No.1
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.746 of 2011, dated 28.11.2017, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IVth Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
For Appellant :Mr.R.Rajamani
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Respondents :Mr.V.Sakthivel
1 to 3
For Respondent-4 :No appearance
JUDGMENT
*********
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed the judgment and
decree made in M.C.O.P.No.746 of 2011, dated 28.11.2017, on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IVth Additional
District Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.Insurance Company is the appellant herein challenging the
award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IVth
Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.746 of 2011 on
the ground of negligence as well as the quantum.The claim
Petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Engineer, who died
as a bachelor in the road traffic accident.
3.The deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing
Registration No. TN 72 R 0300 with the third Petitioner, as pillion
rider from Palayamkottai to Nanguneri, towards south in a normal
speed, on the extreme left side of the road and the lorry bearing
Registration No.TN 74 B 7354 came from behind in a very high
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
speed, overtook the motor cycle, suddenly turned towards left and
stopped infront of motor cycle without any signal and as a result,
the deceased hit at the back side of the lorry, fell down and died at
the spot.
4.In order to substantiate the plea of negligence on the part
of the lorry, the pillion rider, who is also the third petitioner, is
examined as P.W.1. His evidence is to the effect that the motor cycle
was driven slowly and carefully and at about 2.00p.m., the lorry
bearing Registration No. TN 74 B 7354 came from behind in a high
speed and negligently overtook the motor cycle, turned towards left,
suddenly applied brake and caused the accident. It was also brought
from the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the second respondent side
that :
“@tpgj;J rkaj;jpy; eh';fs; eh';Fnehp ghh;j;J
igf;fpy; bry;Yk; nghJ xU yhhp ntfkhf fle;J
brd;W ,lJgf;fkhf jpObud;W epd;Wtpl;lJ/ yhhp
igf;fpd; 10 mof;F Kd;g[ itj;J jpObud;W gpnuf;
nghl;L epd;Wtpl;lJ/ eh';fs; igf;fpy; 40/45
fp/kP !;gPoy; brd;nwhk;/ eh';fs; gpnuf; nghl;L igf;if
jpUg;g[tjw;Fs; yhhp v';fs; Kd;g[ te;J tpl;lJ/@
The evidence of P.W.1 so clearly proves that the motor cycle was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceeding slowly and carefully and only the lorry came in a high
speed, came infront of the motor cycle, suddenly applied brake and
caused the accident.
5.He has categorically narrated that initially the position of
the respective vehicles are that the two wheeler proceeding infront
of the lorry and the lorry overtooking the two wheeler on the leftern
side and after crossing the leftern side, suddenly the lorry had
applied brake and consequently, the two wheeler dashed against the
lorry from behind. In view of the clear and cogent evidence of P.W.
1 and in the absence of any contra evidence, the Tribunal has
rightly come to the conclusion that the accident has taken place
only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry
having Registration No. TN 74 B 7354.
6.On the point of quantum of compensation, both the counsels
are heard.
7.From the documents filed before the Court in Ex.P6 Ex.P7,
Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex.P10 and Ex.P12, I find that the deceased was a
qualified Engineer and also a M. Tech Degree holder and employed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in a foreign country as a Lecturer. The Service Certificate of the
deceased is marked as Ex.P4 and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
fixed the notional income at Rs.14,000/- p.m and added future
prospects at 40% and adopted multiplier '17' and since the
deceased was aged about 30 years, a bachelor, after deducting 50%
towards his personal expenses arrived at pecuniary loss at Rs.
19,99,200/- and so also the other heads as awarded by the Tribunal
seems to be just and reasonable and the same is confirmed . Hence
on both the points, I find that the Tribunal has passed a just and
reasonable order which does not require any interference by this
Court.
8.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed
and the award of the Tribunal stands confirmed. The
appellant/Insurance Compay is directed to deposit the award
amount, as ordered by the Tribunal, with proportionate accrued
interest and costs, less the award amount, if any, already deposited,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. On such deposit being made,the claimants are permitted
to withdraw the award amount, in equal proportion, as ordered by
the Tribunal, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
award amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary
application before the Tribunal.No costs.Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
07.04.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
IVth Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.553 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6615 of 2019
07.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
