Madras High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Meenakshi on 28 April, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A(MD)No.756 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8149 of 2017
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Door No.24, Spencer Compound,
Thiruvalluvar Salai,
Dindigul Town. ... Appellant/Second respondent
.vs.
1.Meenakshi
2.Renukadevi
3.Thamarai
4.Jothilakshmi
5.Muthu
6.Iyyappan ... Respondents
(R6 Ex-parte in Tribunal-Notice dispensed with)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.
347 of 2015 dated 24.02.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Principal District Court, Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Murali
For Respondents : Mr.N.Tamilmani for RR1 to 4
No-appearance for R5
R6-Ex-parte
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
JUDGMENT
************
The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The respondent
Nos.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased Sundarraj, who died in the
road accident on 17.04.2015.
2. Before the Tribunal, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1
to P4 were marked.
3. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, Ex.R1 - copy of Aadhar
Card of the deceased Sundarraj, was marked. The Tribunal, on
consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, fixed the rash and
negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle with the
appellant/Insurance Company. Notional income of Rs.6,000/- is fixed
and the multiplier of “13” is adopted taking into consideration the age
mentioned in Ex.P2/Post-mortem certificate and Ex.P3/Death Certificate.
Consortium for the first respondent is fixed at Rs.50,000/- and love and
affection for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 is fixed as Rs.50,000/- each;
Transportation is fixed as Rs.25,000/- and Funeral Expenses is fixed as
Rs.25,000/-. Challenging the above quantum of compensation, the
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Insurance Company has filed the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. On perusal of Ex.R1/Aadhaar Card, which is marked during the
cross-examination of P.W.1, it reveals that in Ex.R1/Aadhaar Card, the
date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 15.10.1950. Hence, at the
time of accident on 17.04.2015, the deceased could have been aged about
64 years. Hence, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sarlavarma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier
of “7” is to be adopted.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4
would contend that as per Exs.P2 and P3, the deceased is aged about 50
years.
7. When there is no positive evidence indicating the age of the
deceased, Ex.P2/Post mortem certificate and Ex.P3/Death Certificate can
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be relied upon for determination of age. In the instant case, Post-Mortem
Certificate was marked as Ex.P1 which was admitted by P.W.1 during
cross-examination. It is needless to say that the particulars in the Aadhar
Card were given under self-declaration by the concerned person itself.
The age of the deceased mentioned in the Death certificate is given by a
third party. In view of positive evidence of Ex.R1/Aadhar card of the
deceased, I am inclined to follow the date of birth mentioned in the
Aadhar Card as against the Post-mortem certificate and the death
certificate. Accordingly, the multiplier of “7” is adopted and the loss of
dependency is re-assessed as Rs.6,000/-x12x3/4x7= Rs.3,78,000/
8. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.
347 of 2015 is modified as follows:
Sl. Particulars Amount granted Amount
No. by the Tribunal granted by this
Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.7,02,000/- Rs.3,78,000/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/- Rs.40,000/-
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sl. Particulars Amount granted Amount
No. by the Tribunal granted by this
Court
3. Loss of love and Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.1,60,000/-
affection
(consortium) (Rs.50,000X4) (Rs.40,000X4)
4. Transportation Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
5. Loss of estate Nil Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Funeral Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
6. Expenses
Total Rs.10,02,000/- Rs.6,23,000/-
9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.
10,02,000/- to Rs.6,23,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5%
per interest.
10. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
reduced from Rs.10,02,000/- to Rs.6,23,000/-.
5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iii) The appellant – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation awarded by this court, i.e., Rs.6,23,000/- together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum (if not already deposited) to the
credit of M.C.O.P.No.347 of 2015, dated 24.02.2017, on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Dindigul
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(iv) On such deposit being made by the present appellant, the
respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same, in
the manner known to law.
28.04.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court,
Dindigul.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.
ssb
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.756 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8149 of 2017
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
