Madras High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Tamilselvi on 8 August, 2022
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.21932 of 2018 & 12873 of 2019
C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018:
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Nagappa Complex, 2nd Floor,
1076, Mettupalayam Road,
North Coimbatore,
Coimbatore – 641 002. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Tamilselvi
2.Subramani
3.Arukkani
4.Minor. Hariharan
5.Minor. Hayanthika
(Minor respondents 4 & 5 are
represented by their Mother &
Natural Guardian, Tamilselvi,
1st respondent herein)
6.Selvarau
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
7.Vijayalakshmi .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy
For RR 1 to 5 : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
C.M.A.No.2641 of 2019:
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Nagappa Complex, 2nd Floor,
1076, Mettupalayam Road,
North Coimbatore – 641 003. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Vasanthamani
2.Selvaraj
3.Vijayalakshmi .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy
For R1 : Ms.A.Subadra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
C.M.A.No.3163 of 2019:
Vasanthamani .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Selvaraj
2.Vijayalakshmi
(R1 & R2 remained exparte before Tribunal.
Hence, notice to R1 & R2 dispensed with)
3.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,
Nagappa Complex,
2nd Floor, 1076,
Mettupalayam Road,
North Coimbatore – 641 003. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Ms.A.Subadra
For R3 : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI, J.)
C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018 has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company against the award dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1898
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional
District Court, Tiruppur.
2.C.M.A.No.2641 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant-
Insurance Company against the award dated 20.02.2018, made in
M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.
3.C.M.A.No.3163 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant-claimant
challenging the 50% contributory negligence fixed on the part of the
deceased and seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the
Tribunal in the award dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of
2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional
District Court, Tiruppur.
4.C.M.A.Nos.2641 of 2019 & 3163 of 2019 arise out of the same
award and C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018 arise out of different award. All the
three appeals arise out of the same accident and hence, they are disposed
of by this common judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
5.The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the respective
claim petitions, for the sake of convenience.
6.The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 filed the said claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death
of one Shankar, who died in the accident that took place on 09.10.2014.
7.The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 filed the said claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- as compensation for the death
of her son Ramachandran, who died in the accident that took place on
09.10.2014.
8.According to claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps, on 09.10.2014 at
about 09.30 P.M., while the deceased Shankar was riding the Yamaha
Crux motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 39 AH 7705 along with the
deceased Ramachandran as pillion rider from South to North direction on
the Dharapuram – Tirupur road, near A.G.College, the driver of the lorry
bearing Registration No.TN 01 X 2735, who was driving the lorry from
the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the motorcycle driven by the said Shankar and caused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
accident. Due to the said impact, both the Shankar as well as
Ramachandran were thrown on the road, sustained injuries and died on
the spot. Hence, the claimants filed the above said claim petitions
claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- & Rs.34,00,000/- as compensation for
the death of the said Shankar and Ramachandran respectively, against the
respondents who are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry
respectively.
9.The respondents 1 & 2, who are the driver and owner of the lorry
remained exparte before the Tribunal in both the M.C.O.Ps.
10.The 3rd respondent – Insurance Company filed separate counter
statement in both the M.C.O.Ps and commonly denied all the averments
made by the claimants in the claim petitions. According to 3rd respondent,
the lorry belonging to 2nd respondent was insured with them and the
insurance period is from 11.03.2014 to 10.03.2015. The 3rd respondent
denied the manner of accident as alleged by the claimants in both the
M.C.O.Ps. According to 3rd respondent, while the rider of the motorcycle
was riding the motorcycle on the Dharapuram – Tiruppur road, near
A.G.College from South to North on the western side of the road, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
motorcycle hit against the person who was walking in front from North
to South and due to the same, the rider and pillion rider were thrown out
of the motorcycle, dragged further towards right side and dashed on the
lorry which was coming from North to South direction and stopped.
Further, the complaint was preferred by the close relative to the victim.
At the time of accident, both the rider as well as the pillion rider of the
motorcycle were not wearing helmet. Further, both of them were under
the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and they are responsible
for the death of the pedestrian Muthukumar. The motorcycle driven by
the deceased Shankar was not insured at the time of accident. Hence, the
3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The
Avinashipalayam Police have registered a case against the rider of the
motorcycle in Crime No.305 of 2014 under Sections 279, 337 & 304 of
Indian Penal Code and the said case was closed as the rider of the
motorcycle died. In the final report also it was stated that the accident has
occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased Shankar
and the final report was filed as 'further action dropped' as the rider and
pillion rider of the motorcycle died in the accident. The 2nd respondent
have to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident,
particulars of deceased and the name of driver and particulars of driving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
license. The claimants have to prove that they are depending only on the
income of the deceased. The 3rd respondent denied the age, avocation and
income of the deceased in both the M.C.O.Ps. In any event, the quantum
of compensation claimed by the claimants in both M.C.O.Ps are
excessive and prayed for dismissal of both the M.C.O.Ps against the 3rd
respondent.
11.Before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014, the 1st
claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and three witnesses were examined
as P.W.2 to P.W.4 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The 3rd
respondent-Insurance Company examined three witnesses as R.W.1 to
R.W.3 and marked 13 documents as Exs.R1 to R13.
12.Before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, the claimant
examined herself as P.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as P.W.2 &
P.W.3 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The 3 rd respondent-
Insurance Company examined two witnesses as R.W.1 & R.W.2 and
marked 10 documents as Exs.R1 to R10.
13.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving by both the driver of the lorry belonging to 2nd respondent as well
as the rider of the motorcycle, fixed 50% negligence on the part of the
driver of the lorry and 50% negligence on both the rider as well as pillion
rider of the motorcycle and directed the 3rd respondent-Insurance
Company to pay a sum of Rs.8,58,800/- and Rs.7,50,600/- respectively,
being 50% of the award amount as compensation to the claimants in
M.C.O.P.Nos.1898 & 1964 of 2014 respectively.
14.Challenging the liability fastened on them as well as quantum
of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the awards dated 20.02.2018,
made in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 & M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, the 3rd
respondent-Insurance Company has come out with the appeals in
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 of 2019 respectively.
15.Challenging the portion of the award fixing 50% contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased and not being satisfied with the
amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the award dated 20.02.2018, made in
M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, the claimant has come out with an appeal in
C.M.A.No.3163 of 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
16.Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 / respondents 1 to 5 in
C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018 contended that the driver of the lorry was only
responsible for the accident and there is no negligence on the part of the
rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal without considering the same, has
fixed 50% negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the
same is not correct and prayed for dismissal of C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018.
17.Mrs.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 contended that the deceased was only a pillion
rider and he was no way connected with negligence. The Tribunal erred
in fixing 50% negligence on the part of the deceased. The proceedings in
M.C.O.P. cases are summary in nature. Strict proof as required in Civil
and Criminal case is not necessary in M.C.O.P. cases before the Tribunal.
The claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act cannot be decided on
technicalities. The Tribunal should take care of the innocent victim and
the owner and tort-feasor should not be escaped. The statement on oath
prevails over the contents of F.I.R. The Tribunal erred in fixing 50%
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased by relying on rough
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
sketch. The Tribunal erred in not accepting the evidence of P.W.3. in
M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014. At the time of accident, the deceased was
aged 21 years, running Barber shop at Avinashipalayam in the name and
style of K.R.A. Muthu Hairlines and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/-
per month. But, the Tribunal without considering the same, has fixed a
meagre sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased
and awarded lesser compensation. The Tribunal ought to have granted
more than 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency, loss
of estate, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and transportation
are meagre and prayed for dismissal of C.M.A.No.2641 of 2019 filed by
the Insurance Company and for setting aside the portion of the award
fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and for
enhancement of compensation.
18.The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance
Company contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed entire
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The rider of the
motorcycle only hit the pedestrian and came to the right hand side, lost
control and hit against the halted lorry. The Tribunal ought to have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
dismissed both the claim petitions for non-joinder and mis-joinder of
parties. F.I.R. was registered only against the rider of the motorcycle,
who was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Without
any evidence, the Tribunal erroneously fixed 50% negligence on the part
of the driver of the lorry and liability on the Insurance Company and
prayed for setting aside the awards passed in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014
& in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 and for dismissal of C.M.A.No.3163 of
2019 filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014.
19.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-
Insurance Company, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in
M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 and the learned counsel appearing for the
claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 and perused the entire materials on
record.
20.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the
claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps that while one Shankar was riding the
motorcycle along with one Ramachandran as pillion rider on the
Dharapuram – Tirupur road, near A.G.College, the driver of the lorry
belonging to 2nd respondent, who was driving the lorry from the opposite
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the motorcycle driven by the said Shankar and caused the
accident. Due to the said impact, both the Shankar as well as
Ramachandran were thrown on the road, sustained injuries and died on
the spot. To substantiate their contention, the claimants in both M.C.O.Ps
examined one Ponnusamy, eyewitness to the accident as P.W.3 in
M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 and as P.W.2 in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014,
examined one Nachimuthu @ Natrayan as P.W.4 in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of
2014 and as P.W.3 in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 and marked F.I.R. as
Ex.P1 in both the M.C.O.Ps.
21.It is the case of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that the
accident occurred only due to the negligence of the rider of the
motorcycle, who dashed on the pedestrian and came to right hand side
and dashed on the lorry and caused the accident. It is the further case of
the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that the F.I.R. is registered based
on the complaint given by one Nachimuthu @ Natrayan against the rider
of the motorcycle and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
any compensation to the claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps. To substantiate
their contention, the Insurance Company examined the Inspector of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
Police, Avinashipalayam Police Station viz., Chinnaraj as R.W.1 and the
driver of the lorry belonging to 2nd respondent as R.W.2. R.W.1 is not
the Investigating Officer and he deposed based on the available records.
The complainant Nachimuthu @ Natrayan issued Ex.P5 / notice to the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Avinashipalayam and Ex.P7 / notice to
Superintendent of Police, Tirupur, stating that he did not give any
complaint based on which F.I.R. was registered. According to the said
Nachimuthu @ Natrayan, the Police took his signature in the blank paper
and filled up the same as though he gave the complaint. The claimants
also produced acknowledgement card and marked the same as Exs.P6
and P8 in both the M.C.O.Ps. R.W.1 also admitted the receipt of Ex.P5
by the Inspector of Police and R.W.1 deposed that he did not know
whether any action was taken based on the said letter. The said
Nachimuthu @ Natrayan deposed that he was enquired by the
Avinashipalayam Police, but there is no evidence to show that the Police
has taken action on the said notices. In view of Exs.P5 & P7, contents of
Ex.P1/F.I.R., cannot be relied on by the 3rd respondent-Insurance
Company.
21(a). The claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps examined one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
Ponnusamy, alleged eyewitness as P.W.3 in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014
and as P.W.2 in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014. The said Ponnusamy deposed
that he was present at the place of occurrence and he knew the deceased
Shankar, rider of the motorcycle, but he did not give any complaint and
according to him, he left the place of occurrence within 10 minutes of
accident before the dead bodies were taken. The action of the said
Ponnusamy, who knew the rider of the motorcycle, not having lodged
complaint with Police and leaving the place of occurrence before the
dead bodies were taken creates a suspicion about his presence at the time
of accident. The Tribunal rightly held that his evidence is untrustworthy.
21(b). The said Nachimuthu @ Natrayan is not an eyewitness and
only after hearing the news, he reached the place of occurrence. In view
of the same, even if he has given complaint to the Police that accident
has occurred only due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle,
the same is only hearsay and he has denied having given any such
complaint.
21(c). R.W.2 – driver of the lorry went to the police along with the
lorry after the accident. He did not give any complaint to the Police. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
also did not produce the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. R.W.2
admitted that rider of the motorcycle after hitting the pedestrian, came to
right hand side and dashed on the lorry and caused the accident. By his
evidence, it is an admitted fact that the motorcycle and lorry colluded and
accident occurred.
21(d). Apart from R.W.2, an interested witness, no other
independent witness was examined by the Insurance Company to prove
the manner of accident and that only the rider of the motorcycle was
negligent and caused the accident. In the absence of any evidence or
eyewitness, the Tribunal considering Ex.R2 / rough sketch, evidence of
P.W.1, P.W.3, R.W.1 & R.W.2 and documents filed, came to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the
driver of the lorry as well as rider of the motorcycle and fixed 50%
negligence on both the driver of the lorry and rider of the motorcycle.
There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting
interference by this Court.
21(e). Further, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 that the pillion rider of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
motorcycle was not at all responsible for the accident and 50%
negligence fixed on the part of the pillion rider is erroneous is not
acceptable. Once 50% negligence is fixed on the rider of the motorcycle
or pillion rider of the motorcycle, the claimants are not entitled to entire
compensation. The insurer of the lorry cannot be held liable for payment
of entire compensation.
22.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned in
C.M.A.Nos.2641 & 3163 of 2019, it is the case of the claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 that her son was aged 21 years, running
Barber shop at Avinashipalayam in the name and style of K.R.A. Muthu
Hairlines and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of
accident. To prove the said contention, the claimant examined one
Nachimuthu @ Natrayan as P.W.3. Except oral evidence, the claimant has
not proved the income of the deceased by producing documentary
evidence. In the absence of any materials with regard to income of the
deceased, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.7,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2014 and the notional
income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. Considering the age, nature of
work and year of accident, a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month is fixed as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
notional income of the deceased. As per Ex.P2 / postmortem certificate
and Ex.P3 / death certificate, the deceased Ramachandran was aged 20
years at the time of accident. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), [National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC
1 SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & another], the Tribunal has rightly granted 40%
enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier '18'. The
deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the Tribunal ought to
have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of deducting 1/3rd.
Thus, by fixing a sum of Rs.9,000/- as monthly income, granting 40%
enhancement towards future prospects, applying multiplier '18' and after
deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is
modified to Rs.13,60,800/- {Rs.12,600/- [Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/- (40%
of Rs.9,000/-)] X 12 X 18 X 1/2}. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, which is excessive and the same is modified
as the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 is entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. The amounts awarded by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same
are hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount Award
No by Tribunal awarded by confirmed or
(Rs) this Court enhanced or
(Rs) granted
1. Loss of dependency 14,11,200/- 13,60,800/- Reduced
2. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
3. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
5. Loss of love and 50,000/- - Set aside
affection
6. Filial consortium - 40,000/- Granted
Total Rs.15,01,200/- Rs.14,40,800/- Reduced by
Rs.30,200/-
(Rs.7,50,600/-
50% of -
compensation Rs.7,50,600/- Rs.7,20,400/- Rs.7,20,400/-)
23.In the result,
(i) C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018 is dismissed and the sum of
Rs.8,58,800/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimants
along with interest and costs is confirmed. The 3rd respondent-Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and
costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur. On such deposit, the
claimants 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the
award amount as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal,
along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any,
already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal.
The share of the minor claimants 4 & 5 are directed to be deposited in
any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minor claimants 4 & 5 attain
majority. On such deposit, the 1st claimant, being the mother of the minor
claimants 4 & 5 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in
three months for the welfare of the minor claimants 4 & 5. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(ii) C.M.A.No.2641 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company is
partly allowed and C.M.A.No.3163 of 2019 is also partly allowed with
regard to monthly income of the deceased. The compensation awarded by
the Tribunal at Rs.7,50,600/- is hereby reduced to Rs.7,20,400/-. The 3rd
respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount
now determined by this Court along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, less the amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1964 of
2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional
District Court, Tiruppur. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to
withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with
interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making
necessary applications before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent-Insurance
Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the credit
of M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, if the entire award amount has been
already deposited by them. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed. No costs.
(V.M.V., J) (S.S., J)
08.08.2022
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The I Additional District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Tiruppur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
and
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
krk
C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 & 3163 of 2019
08.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
