Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Ramasamy on 13 April, 2022
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.13117 of 2020
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
12003 A, M.M.Reddy Complex,
Old Bangalore Road, Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District - 635 109. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Ramasamy
2.Maheswari
3.Mariyamma
4.Shiva Kumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act against the award dated 13.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.62
of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional
District Court, Hosur.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondents : Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan
for R1 to R3
R4 - Not ready in Notice
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company is before this Court, challenging the Award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge,
Hosur in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2015.
2. The facts which has culminated in the filing of the above Appeal
are as follows:
The deceased Pachamuthu, who was aged about 24 years and
working as an operator trainee in TVS Motor Company Limited was
travelling on his vehicle i.e., Honda Unicon bearing Registration No.TN-34-
T-5869 on 08.08.2014 at about 21.30 hrs. The deceased was driving the
bike on Thally to Hosur Road and when he neared the Thally Railway road,
the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-70-C-8120 belonging to
the fourth respondent and insured with the appellant / Insurance Company
came in rash and negligent manner and hit the bike on its rear in which the
deceased was travelling. By reason of the impact, the deceased had fallen
down and was crushed under the lorry. The claimants are the father and two
sisters of the deceased. It is the contention of the claimants that the third
respondent, who is dumb since her birth was deserted by her husband and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
was living under the care of her deceased brother. The claimants had sought
for a compensation of Rs.89,22,000/-. The parties are referred to be in the
same rank as arrayed in the Tribunal.
3. The Appellant / Insurance Company had filed its counter, invoking
the provisions of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest on all
grounds for its insured viz., the fourth respondent / owner of the lorry, since
the fourth respondent herein had remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
4. The defence of the appellant / Insurance Company was that the
accident had occurred on account of the contributory negligence on the side
of the deceased and the owner and the insurer of the motor-cycle was also
required to be made a party to the proceedings. The claimants were also put
to strict proof that they were the legal heirs of the deceased Pachamuthu.
The Appellant had also taken the defence that the deceased did not have a
valid and effective driving license. They had also denied the employment of
the deceased with the TVS Motor Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
5. The Additional District Judge, Hosur by its Award dated
13.09.2019 was pleased to pass an Award for a sum of Rs.24,79,080/-. The
Tribunal has taken into account Ex.P5 (Pay Slip) and Ex.P16 (Salary
Certificate) and arrived at income of Rs.15,900/-. Considering the age of the
deceased, 40% was added towards his future prospects and being a bachelor
50% was deducted towards his personal expenses. Ultimately, a sum of
Rs.17,17,200/- was arrived under the head of loss of dependency. The
Tribunal, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence, had arrived at
the following compensation:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 17,17,200
Loss of love and affection 30,000
Transportation 10,000
Funeral Expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 20,000
Future prospects 6,86,880
Total 24,79,080
Challenging the same, the appellant / Insurance Company is before
this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
6. Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant /
Insurance Company would submit that Ex.P5 and Ex.P16 have not been
properly considered by the Tribunal. The pay slip for the period from
01.04.2014 to 30.04.2014 which has been marked as Ex.P16 would show a
salary of Rs.15,900/- whereas Ex.P5, which is the pay slip for the period
from 01.05.2014 and 31.05.2014, which is the very next month shows a
total salary of Rs.11,674.07 and a sum of Rs.1,426.25 was taken towards the
PF contributions, ESI Contributions, etc.,. Therefore, he would submit that
the Tribunal below has erred in adopting a salary of Rs.15,900/-.
7. Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the claimants / respondents 1 to 3 would submit that Ex.P16 shows that a
sum of Rs.15,900/- is on the higher side, therefore, the Tribunal had adopted
the salary, which is the Ex.P16, which is also a pay slip of the Company and
considering the beneficial legislation, this Court ought to lien towards the
higher salary.
8. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
9. The only ground of challenge is to the quantum. The learned
counsel for the Appellant / Insurance Company would submit that the
Tribunal has erroneously fixed the income at Rs.15,900/-, totally over-
looking the fact that, in Ex.P5, the income is shown as a sum of
Rs.11,674.07 which would clearly show that the sum of Rs.15,900/- as
shown in Ex.P16 is not correct. Further, the Appellant / Insurance Company
has not questioned P.W.3 regarding the above difference in the salary
shown in Ex.P16 and as shown in Ex.P5. The counsel for the respondent
was not able to explain the above difference and therefore initially this
Court was inclined to allow the Appeal and reduce the notional income to
Rs.13,000/-. However, on a further analysis of the two salary certificate viz.,
Ex.P16 and Ex.P5 had come to light that the difference is only on account of
the fact that in Ex.P5, the claimant had not worked for two days. Therefore,
all the amounts due under various heads including consolidated stipend has
been reduced proportionately for the said two days. If this is taken into
account, then the salary shown in Ex.P16 appears to be a salary that was
being paid to the claimant. In these circumstances, the adoption of the said
amount as the monthly income by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with
and accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed and the Award passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2015 is hereby confirmed.
10. The Appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said
amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2015 along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any
already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimants are
permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with proportionate interest
and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already
withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. There shall
be no order as to costs in the present appeal.
13.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court, Hosur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
P.T. ASHA, J,
ab
C.M.A. No.1779 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.13117 of 2020
13.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
