Madras High Court
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd vs S.Subbulaxmi on 10 January, 2022
C.M.A.No.3681 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.3681 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.21632 of 2021
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.,
I Floor, GeeJay Arcade,
No.141/71, T.V.Samy Road (west),
R.S.Puram,
Coimbatore- 2. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Subbulaxmi
2.Minor Melvin Raja
3.Minor Anne Priyadarshini
(Minors 2 & 3 are represented by their guardian
mother-S.Subbulaxmi)
4.Meddledo Mary
5.Arusamy
6.Chandrika
7.Vasanthamani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 7th June, 2018
passed in M.C.O.P. No.285 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3681 of 2021
Special Sub Court (M.C.O.P) at Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Bhuvanasundari
For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunalan
for R1 to R3.
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.
No.285 of 2014 dated 07.06.2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court (M.C.O.P) at Coimbatore.
2.For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking in
the claim petition.
3.The case of the claimants is that on 03.02.2009 at about12.15 pm., the
deceased Antonyraj was riding his Hero Honda Motor Cycle Splendor Plus,
bearing Registration No.TN 38 AC 7056 in a careful manner by strictly following
the traffic rules from North to South direction on the Sathy main road and
proceed for Sundarapuram. When he is nearby Athipalayam Pirivu, Sridevi
Bakery, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 28 P 9531 driven by the 1 st
respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. Due to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3681 of 2021
the accident, the deceased was thrown away from the vehicle and sustained
grievous head injuries, died on the spot.
4.Alleging that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the 1st respondent lorry, the claimants laid a petition,
claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.
5.The appellant resisted the claim petition by filing counter statement, in
which, it is stated that the deceased was responsible for the accident and hence,
the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. They also disputed the age,
income and occupation of the deceased.
6.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were
examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P.13 were marked. On the side of the
appellant/Insurance Company, neither the witnesses were examined nor the
documents were marked.
7.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held
that the 1st respondent-driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident and
awarded compensation of Rs.16,45,000/- to the claimants. The break-up details of
the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3681 of 2021
Compensation for loss of dependency Rs. 15,75,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 16,45,000/-
8.Against the award, the appellant Insurance Company has filed the present
appeal.
9.Heard Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company and Mr.B.Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and also perused the materials available on
record.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company has
contended that the Tribunal has failed to note that there is negligence on the part
of the deceased. She has further contended that though the claimants have
produced the Ex.P.13-Income Tax letter for the assessment years 2005-06 and
2006-2007 showing the annual income of the deceased as Rs.84,190 and
Rs.99,830/- respectively, the Tribunal without any valid evidence fixed the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and arrived a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3681 of 2021
Rs.15,75,000/- under the head of Loss of dependency.
11.In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would
state that the deceased is a Auditor cum business man, who is running a business
in the name and style of M/s United Services. Since the deceased has not filed the
Income Tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008, it cannot be construed that
the deceased might have received the monthly income, less than the last year.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly arrived a sum of Rs.15,75,000/- under the head
of loss of dependency, by fixing the monthly income as Rs.10,000/-. Thus, he
pleaded to dismiss this appeal.
12.Perusal of records reveal that the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of
evidence of First Information Report (Ex.P.1), found that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the Lorry.
With regard to compensation, the Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, and
documents, Ex.P.10-Income Tax return for the year 2005-2006, 2006-2007,
Ex.P.13-Income Tax letter and considering the age of the deceased fixed the
monthly income and adopted correct multiplier by following the decision in
Sarala Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3681 of 2021
reported in 2009 TN MAC 1, and awarded a just and reasonable compensation.
Further, the quantum of compensation under remaining heads fixed by the
Tribunal are reasonable. We find no reason to interfere with the conclusion
reached by the Tribunal. This appeal has no merit. Hence, this appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
13.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
one of the nationalized bank, as fixed deposit under the Cumulative Deposit
Scheme, till the minor attains the age of major and hand over the fixed deposit
certificate to the mother of the minor claimants. Till such time, the interest
accrued thereon shall be withdrawn by the first claimant/wife of the deceased,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3681 of 2021
once in three months directly from the Bank. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
10.01.2022
Jer
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Special Sub Court (M.C.O.P) at Coimbatore.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3681 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Jer
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.3681 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.21632 of 2021
10.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
