Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Gomathi on 20 January, 2022
C.M.A. No.1972 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A. No.1972 of 2021
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
3607/21, Sathiyamoorthi Road,
2nd Floor (Near Team Hospital),
Puthukottai 622 001. ...appellant
vs.
1. Gomathi
2. K.S.Balaji
3. Muthammal
4. Ramalingam ...respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, against the award and decree dated 11.03.2020 made in
MCOP.No.358 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge), Ariyalur.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondents
for RR1 to 4 : Notice served - No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/8
C.M.A. No.1972 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J]
The appeal is heard through video conferencing.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Ariyalur in
MCOP.No.358 of 2012, dated 11.03.2020.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal.
4. The claimant is the wife of the deceased Balakrishnan and his
parents were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in the claim petition. It is
averred that the deceased Balakrishnan was working as a Project Manager
in Comfort Air Conditioner and Engineering Private Limited in Singapore
with the monthly income of Rs.1,60,000/- and he died at the age of 27.
According to the claimant, on 10.02.2012, the deceased was riding a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-61-H-4222 from Tholuthur to
Viruthachalam and when he was nearing Vahayur Union School, he was hit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/8
C.M.A. No.1972 of 2021
by a Tanker Lorry and he died on the spot. Though she sought for a
compensation of Rs.1 Crore, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.47,06,848/-.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company Mr.D.Bhaskaran would submit that the documents produced by
the claimant before the Tribunal would establish that the deceased was
temporarily working at Singapore. Further, admittedly, on the date of
accident, he was not in foreign employment. It is further stated that, in the
first round of litigation, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.45,000/- and this Court after fixing 30% negligence on the
part of the deceased, remanded the matter back to to the Tribunal to
quantify the compensation. According to the learned counsel, the monthly
income fixed by the Tribunal even for the second time, is also on the higher
side.
6. Though the claimant and her in-laws have been served and their
names are printed in the cause list, none appears for them.
7. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that, this Court in
CMA.No.1333 of 2016, vide judgment dated 21.07.2017, has fixed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/8
C.M.A. No.1972 of 2021
negligence in the ratio of 70:30. Hence, there is no need for further
discussion with regard to the negligence aspect.
8. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the claimant had produced
Ex.P14 Statement of account, Exs.P16 & P17 Identity Card and Ex.P18
Consolidated Statement of the deceased to support her case to prove the
avocation and income of the deceased. As observed by the Tribunal, on the
date of accident, the deceased was not in foreign employment. But the
Tribunal had fixed the notional income at Rs.35,000/- and added 40%
towards future prospects. Perusal of the records would reveal that the
deceased had undergone special training for Air Conditioning and
Engineering Service and got employment at Singapore. Taking note of the
fact that the deceased was a technician and he also worked at Singapore and
gained experience, we are of the considered opinion that it is appropriate to
fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- and add 40% towards
future prospects and if so calculated, the actual monthly income would be
Rs.35,000/- [25,000 + 10,000]. If 1/3 is deducted towards personal expenses
of the deceased, the contribution to the family would be Rs.23,340/-
[35,000 - 11,660]. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier 17 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/8
C.M.A. No.1972 of 2021
applied and the Loss of the Income is assessed at Rs.47,61,360/- [ 23,340 x
12 x 17].
9. Further, since the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards Loss
of Love and Affection, Consortium and Funeral Expenses to the tune of
Rs.30,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/-, respectively could not be
awarded as per the decision of the Apex Court, the same are set aside,
instead, this Court awards a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the claimant towards
consortium; Rs.80,000/- to the parents of the deceased towards Filial
Consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral Expenses; and Rs.15,000/-
towards Loss of Estate. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to
Rs.49,11,360/-. Since the contributory negligence of the deceased has
already been fixed at 30%, the compensation payable to the legal heirs of
the deceased would be Rs.34,37,952/- [49,11,360 - 14,73,408]. Thus, the
sum of Rs.34,38,000/- (rounded off) is awarded as total compensation along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition
till the date of realization. Therefore, the total compensation payable to the
claimants is re-calculated and tabulated below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/8
C.M.A. No.1972 of 2021
S. Heads under which the Amount awarded by Amount awarded
No. amount is awarded by the the Tribunal in by this Court in
Tribunal Rs. Rs.
1. Loss of Income 66,64,068 47,61,360
2. Loss of Love and Affection 30,000 -
3. Consortium 20,000 40,000
4. Filial Consortium - 80,000
5. Funeral Expenses 10,000 15,000
6. Loss of Estate - 15,000
Total 67,24,068 49,11,360
30% deducted towards 20,17,2220 14,73,408
deceased's Contributory
negligence
Compensation payable to 47,06,848 34,37,952
the legal heirs of the (rounded off to)
deceased 34,38,000
10. In view of the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed. The award amount of Rs.47,06,848/- is reduced to
Rs.34,38,000/- and this amount will carry interest at 7.5% as ordered by the
Tribunal. The wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.20,00,000/- and the
parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.7,19,000/- each. The
appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the above modified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/8
C.M.A. No.1972 of 2021
award amount with accrued 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. On such deposit, claimants are permitted to
withdraw their share with proportionate interest and costs. There is no order
as to cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.K.K.S, J] [V.S.G., J]
20.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/No
pvs
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/8
C.M.A. No.1972 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
pvs
C.M.A. No.1972 of 2021
20.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.8/8
