Madras High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Krishnaveni on 21 April, 2022

                                                                 C.M.A.Nos.3374 of 2021 and 471 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 21.04.2022

                                                        CORAM

                                     THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                       C.M.A.Nos.3374 of 2021 and 471 of 2022
                                                       and
                                              C.M.P.No.19468 of 2021

                     C.M.A.No.3374 of 2021:

                     The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                     3rd Party Claim Hub,
                     No.215, Prakasam Salai,
                     Chennai - 600 001.                                               ... Appellant

                                                         -Vs.-

                     1.Krishnaveni

                     2.Velan

                     3. Creamy Inn,
                     No.W.396, School Road,
                     Anna Nagar West Extn,
                     Chennai - 600 101.                                               ... Respondents

C.M.A.No.471 of 2022:

                     1.Krishnaveni
                     2.Velan                                                          ... Appellants

                                                         -Vs.-



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                               C.M.A.Nos.3374 of 2021 and 471 of 2022

                     1.Creamy Inn,
                     No.W.396, School Road,
                     Anna Nagar West Extn,
                     Chennai - 600 101.

                     2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                     3rd Party Claim Hub,
                     No.215, Prakasam Salai,
                     Chennai - 600 001.                                              ... Respondents

Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.3866 of 2019 dated 31.08.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

C.M.A.No.3374 of 2021:

                                  For Appellant     :     Mr.J.Chandran
                                  For Respondents :       Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja
                                                          for R1 and R2
                                                          R3 - Not ready in notice

                     C.M.A.No.471 of 2022:


                                  For Appellants    :     Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja
                                  For Respondents :       M/s.A.Laxmi Raj Rathnam
                                                          for R1
                                                          Mr.J.Chandran
                                                          for R2




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           C.M.A.Nos.3374 of 2021 and 471 of 2022

                                                 COMMON              JUDGMENT

Since both the appeals arise out of a single claim petition, a common

judgement is being pronounced.

2. C.M.A.No.3374 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company,

challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.3866 of 2019 by the learned

Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. C.M.A.No.471 of 2022 is filed

by the claimants against the very same award.

3. The facts in brief are as follows:-

The claimants are the parents of one Srinivasan, who died in a road

accident on 02.06.2019. It is the case of the claimants that on the said date,

their son Srinivasan was riding a motor-cycle bearing Registration No.TN 04

AU 7194 as pillion rider on Anna Salai and, when the motor-cycle had reached

the G.P.Road Junction, Near Buhari Hotel, a car bearing Registration No.TN

02 AS 3000, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner on the left side

of the motor-cycle and proceeding in the same direction, had turned suddenly

to the right without any indication, as a result of which, the Car hit the motor-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.3374 of 2021 and 471 of 2022

cycle and both the claimant's son as well as the rider of the motor-cycle were

thrown out and the claimant's son succumbed to the injuries in the hospital, to

which, he was taken for treatment. It is their case that their son was aged about

21 years and was working as an Office Assistant in a private concern and

earing a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. The claimants who claim to be his

dependents, had filed the claim petition, seeking compensation of a sum of

Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. The first respondent had filed a counter statement, in which, he had

claimed that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the

motor-cycle and not on account of the negligence on the car driver.

5. The second respondent-Insurance Company has also filed a counter

statement contending that it is for the claimants to prove their case.

6. The Tribunal below held negligence to be on the side of the rider of

the car belonging to the first respondent, since they had not been able to

establish their contention that the accident had occurred on account of the

negligence of the rider of the motor-cycle. Thereafter, the Tribunal had adopted

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.3374 of 2021 and 471 of 2022

a notional income of Rs.9,810/-, since the claimants had not proved their case

that their son was employed as an Office Assistant in a private concern. The

Tribunal had calculated the salary on the basis of the minimum wages for a

casual labourer in the Tamil Nadu during 2019, which was a sum of Rs.327/-

per day. Therefore, the Tribunal had arrived at a notional income of Rs.9,810/-

to which, they had added 40% towards future prospects and deducted 1/3

towards personal expenses and arrived at a loss of income/dependency at

Rs.22,60,224/-, loss of Consortium at Rs.80,000/-, Loss of Estate at

Rs.15,000/- and Funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and therefore, a total sum of

Rs.23,70,224/- was awarded as compensation.

7. The Insurance Company has filed C.M.A.No.3374 of 2021,

challenging the quantum, particularly, with reference to the apportionment of

the compensation towards personal expenses. The Insurance Company had also

challenged the fact that the deceased rider of the motor-cycle had driven the

vehicle without driving licence and that both the rider as well as the pillion

rider, were not wearing a helmet.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.3374 of 2021 and 471 of 2022

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal

expenses over-looking the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore

50% ought to have been deducted towards the personal expenses.

10. Per contra, Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing

for the claimants would contend that the accident is of the year 2019 and taking

into account the age of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have adopted a sum

of Rs.12,500/- towards notional income and not Rs.9,810/- as adopted by the

Tribunal. He would therefore submit that the amount under the head of "Loss

of Dependency" has to necessarily be enhanced.

11. Heard both the counsels and perused the materials available on

record.

12. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses

instead of 50%, considering the fact that the deceased was a Bachelor. It is also

correct that the notional income arrived at by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.3374 of 2021 and 471 of 2022

The accident is of the year 2019 and the deceased was aged about 21 years.

Therefore, the notional income ought to have been fixed at a sum of

Rs.12,500/-, to which, 40% should be added towards future prospects. Out of

this, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses and considering the

age, multiplier "18" should have been adopted. Therefore, the compensation

under the head of "Loss of dependency" is fixed as sum of Rs.18,90,000/-.

[Rs.12,500/- x 40% = Rs.17,500/-]. Out of this 50% is to be deducted towards

personal expenses i.e.,Rs.8,750 x 12 x 18 = Rs,18,90,000. The amounts

granted under the other heads do not require any revision. The modified

award would be as follows:

                                          Heads            Amount by the Amount Awarded by
                                                             Tribunal       this Court
                                                                in Rs.          in Rs.
                                  Loss             of           22,60,224            18,90,000
                                  Income/Dependency

                                  Loss of Estate                  15,000                 15,000
                                  Loss of Consortium at           80,000                 80,000
                                  Rs.40,000/- for each
                                  claimants
                                  Funeral Expenses                15,000                 15,000
                                                   Total        23,70,224            20,00,000




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                     C.M.A.Nos.3374 of 2021 and 471 of 2022

13. Therefore, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed and

the compensation of Rs.23,70,224/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced

to a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- together with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the

date of petition till the date of deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the said amount Rs.20,00,000/- to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3866 of

2019 together with interest @ 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 Judgement. The said amount shall be apportioned equally

amongst the claimants. On such deposit being made, the claimants are

permitted to withdraw the amount now determined by this Court, along with

interest and costs, as apportioned by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount if