Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Saradha ... I on 29 April, 2022
C.M.A.No.1050 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A. No.1050 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.7748 of 2022
The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd
Shanmuga Complex, 1-15, 24-H, 1st Floor,
New Edapadi Road, Sankari Post
Salem District.
... Appellant/II Respondent
Vs
1.Saradha ... I Respondent/I Petitioner
2.Dineshkumar ... II Respondent/II Petitioner
3.Naveen ... III Respondent/III Petitioner
4.R.Alagusundaram ... IV Respondent/I Respondent
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1050 of 2022
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2015 made in
M.C.O.P.No.864 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioner : Ms.I Malar
JUDGEMENT
The Insurance Company has challenged the Award passed by the
learned Special Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri,
in M.C.O.P.No.864 of 2013 dated 31.07.2015. The challenge is
on the ground of negligence and quantum.
2.The facts in brief are as follows:
The legal representatives has filed the above claim petition
seeking compensation for the death of the deceased Munusamy aged
40 years, in a road accident that had taken place on 03.05.2013. It is
their case that the deceased Munusamy, was working as Pulp Division
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1050 of 2022
Operator in Venkraft Paper Mills Private Limited, Hosur. On
03.05.2013 about 10.15 hours, while the deceased was riding his Hero
Honda Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-70F-
6051 from Gopasandiram to Puzhutikarai, a bus belonging to the 1st
respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent which was driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at uncontrollable speed
hit the rear of the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling. By
reason of the impact, the said Munusamy had sustained injuries and
died on the spot. The accident had taken place only on account of rash
and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent bus. The
claimants had stated that the deceased Munusamy was earning a
monthly salary of Rs.14,750/0. Therefore, they had sought for a
compensation of Rs.30 lakhs.
3.The 1st respondent was called absent and set ex parte and the
2nd respondent Insurance Company had contested the case on all
grounds available to their insurer. They had denied the claim as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1050 of 2022
contained in the claim Statement.
4.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence has awarded a sum of Rs.20,25,000/- as compensation for
the death of the said Munusamy as follows:
Future loss of income -Rs.18,00,000/-
Loss of consortium for the 1st
petitioner who had lost her husband
for the respondent of her life -Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection to the
petitioners 2 and 3 who had lost their
father (Rs.50,000/- x 2) -Rs. 1,00,000/-
Transport to hospital -Rs. 5,000/-
Funeral Expenses -Rs. 20,000/-
-------------------
Total -Rs.20,25,000/-
-------------------
Challenging the same, the Insurance Company has filed the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1050 of 2022
appeal.
5.The appellant would contend that without a concrete evidence,
the Tribunal has mulcted the entire liability only on the transport bus.
That apart, the compensation granted was on the higher side.
6.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
papers.
7.As regards the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has
extensively considered the evidence let in both sides. The Tribunal
relied upon the evidence of the eye witness who was examined as
PW2 and has also considered the cross examination of RW1, the
driver wherein he has clearly admitted that he has not challenged the
FIR filed in which he is shown as the person solely responsible for the
accident. He had also admitted that he alone has been charge sheeted
for the said accident. Therefore, the contention of the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1050 of 2022
Insurance Company cannot be countenanced. That apart, the quantum
of Award is very reasonable. The claimants have marked the Salary
Certificate as Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 which had been
marked through PW3. The Tribunal has taken note of the same and
passed the Award. I do not see any reason for setting aside the Award
passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with
interest @ 7.5% per annum, less the statutory deposit already made,
to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.864 of 2013 on the file of the learned
Special Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri. within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On such deposit, the respondents are permitted to withdraw the
amounts as apportioned by the Tribunal by making necessary
applications.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1050 of 2022
29.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non-Speaking
mps
To
The Special Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
P.T. ASHA, J,
mps
C.M.A. No.1050 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.7748 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1050 of 2022
29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
