Madras High Court
The Manager vs Vetti Kanchana on 4 January, 2022
C.M.A.No.3648 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.3648 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.21432 of 2021
The Manager
M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having Office at Rai's Tower
Plot No.2054, 2nd Avenue
2nd Floor, Next Senthil Nursing Home
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Vetti Kanchana
2.Minor. Vetti Sangeetha
3.Minor. Vetti Sangavi
4.Minor. Vetti Charan Raj
(Minors represented by their mother Next friend, Vetti Kanchana)
5.Vetti Nandan
6.Vetti Arllusle
7.N.Rajan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2020 made in
M.C.O.P.No.269 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3648 of 2021
Special District Judge, Thiruvallur.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Judge, Thiruvallur, in MCOP No.269 of 2015.
2. The case of the claimants is that on 08.12.2014 at 06.30 pm., when the
deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-37-D-6333, near
Lucky Weigh Bridge on National Highway Road, Tada Mandal, on extreme left
side of the road, at that time, the 1st respondent's vehicle viz., Tractor bearing
Registration No.TN-20-AR-0828, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, hit against the deceased and thus caused the accident. As a result, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately admitted in Rajiv Gandhi
Government Hospital, Chennai for treatment. During the period of treatment, he
died on 11.12.2014. The claimants are legal heirs of the deceased. Alleging that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3648 of 2021
the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the Tractor, the claimants laid a petition, claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/-.
3.Resisting the claim, the appellant Insurance Company filed their counter
disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased and
its liability to pay the compensation. It was also contended that the claim amount
is excessive.
4.To substantiate the case, on the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were
examined and Exs.P1 to 9 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance
Company, neither the witnesses, nor the documents were marked.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence held
that the driver of the Tractor belonging to the 1st respondent herein was
responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.24,54,356/- to the
claimants. Assailing the award, the appellant Insurance Company has filed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3648 of 2021
present appeal.
6.Heard Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.
7.This appeal has been filed only challenging the quantum, hence, the other
issues need not be dealt with herein.
8.It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
company has contended that the award is on the higher side by wrongly fixing
excessive monthly income of deceased as Rs.11,085/-.. Further, the Tribunal erred
in fixing the monthly income of the deceased, based on the cost inflammation
without taking into consideration that he would not have received employment on
all the 365 days.
9.We have considered the matter in the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and on perusal of the records reveal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3648 of 2021
that the Tribunal, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- by following the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India
Insurance Company, reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 and taking note of the
cost inflation index for the year 2007-2008, fixed the notional income of the
deceased at the time of accident at Rs.11,085/- to award compensation to the
victims. In our view the award is a just and reasonable. We find no reason to
interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
10.In such view of the matter, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed as devoid of merits. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. On such deposit is being made, the major claimants are
permitted to withdraw the award amount as apportioned by the Tribunal, less the
amount already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest and costs.
Further, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimants in any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3648 of 2021
one of the nationalized banks, as fixed deposit under the Cumulative Deposit
Scheme, till the minors attain the age of major and hand over the fixed deposit
certificate to the mother of the minor claimants. Till such time, the 1 st
respondent/wife of the deceased being the guardian, shall withdraw the interest
every 6 months once. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
04.01.2022
Jer
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Special District Judge, Thiruvallur.
2.V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3648 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Jer
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.3648 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.21432 of 2021
04.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
