Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs K.Babu
2022 Latest Caselaw 9700 Mad

                                                                       C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED: 09.06.2022

                                                   CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
                                                   and
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                             C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022
                                           and C.M.P.No.8161 of 2022


                  Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
                  Reliance House
                  6th floor
                  MTPCO, Legal Department
                  No.6, Haddows Road
                  Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.                                  ... Appellant


                                                        Vs.

                  1.K.Babu
                  2.B.Priya
                  3.B.Pradeep
                  4.B.Prasanth

                  5.M/s.JSM Logistics Private Limited
                  Plot No.1 and 1A, Flat No.4A
                  4th street, UR Nagar Extension
                  Anna nagar west extension
                  Chennai-600 101.                                         ... Respondents



                  1/12


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

                  Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor

                  Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2021 made

                  in M.C.O.P.No.1006 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

                  Special Sub Court No.II to deal with MCOP cases, Small Causes Court,

                  Chennai.



                                               For Appellant     : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari

                                                         JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated

28.10.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.1006 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.II to deal with MCOP cases, Small

Causes Court, Chennai.

2.The appellant/Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in

M.C.O.P.No.1006 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Special Sub Court No.II to deal with MCOP cases, Small Causes Court,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

Chennai. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum

of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Sujatha, who died in

the accident that took place on 27.09.2014.

3.According to the respondents 1 to 4, on the date of accident i.e., on

27.09.2014 at about 08.45 hours, while the deceased Sujatha along with other

co-workers were travelling in the share Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration

No.AP-03-X-9477 from Mugali, Venkatagiri Village to Mugali Village in

Chittoor District towards Palamaner side, on Chennai – Bangalore National

Highways Road and while they were proceeding near Gandlapalli bus stop in

Bangarupalem Mandal, the driver of the lorry belonging to the 5 th respondent

bearing Registration No.TN-02-AR-8043, who was coming in the opposite

direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and came on the

wrong side of the road, hit the share Auto Rickshaw and caused the accident.

In the accident, the said Sujatha and one Pyarijan died and other persons

sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4

have filed the above claim petition claiming compensation for the death of

said Sujatha against the 5th respondent, owner of the lorry and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

appellant/Insurance Company, insurer of the said lorry.

4.The 5th respondent, owner of the lorry filed counter statement denying

the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the driver of the share

Auto Rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and invited the

accident. The total compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 is

excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5.Though the 5th respondent, owner of the lorry filed counter statement,

he remained exparte before the Tribunal.

6.The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement denying

the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the accident has

occurred only due to negligence of the driver of the share Auto Rickshaw, in

which the deceased person travelled, since at the time of accident, more than

ten persons have travelled in the said share Auto Rickshaw. Therefore, the

appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the

respondents 1 to 4. In any event, the compensation claimed by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

respondents 1 to 4 is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, husband of the deceased

examined himself as P.W.1 and other claimants in other M.C.O.Ps. have

examined themselves as P.W.2 to P.W.6 and 84 documents were marked as

Exs.P1 to P84. The appellant/Insurance Company did not let in any oral and

documentary evidence. Disability certificates issued by the Medical Board

were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.

8.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by

the driver of the lorry belonging to the 5th respondent and directed the

appellant/Insurance Company being the insurer of the said lorry to pay a sum

of Rs.18,05,100/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.

9.Against the said award dated 28.10.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.1006

of 2015, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present

appeal.

10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

contended that the Tribunal without properly appreciating the materials,

erroneously held that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver

of the lorry belonging to the 5th respondent, insured with the appellant. At the

time of accident, more than ten persons have travelled in the share Auto

Rickshaw and the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of the

said share Auto Rickshaw. The accident is head on collision. The Tribunal

ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the

share Auto Rickshaw. In any event, the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per

month fixed by the Tribunal for the deceased Sujatha, who is temporary

worker in Juice Factory, is excessive. The total compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is also excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the

Tribunal.

11.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance

Company and perused the entire materials on record.

12.From the materials on record, it is seen that on 27.09.2014, while

the deceased Sujatha along with her co-workers were travelling in the share

Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.AP-03-X-9477, from Mugali,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

Venkatagiri Village to Mugali Village, the driver of the lorry bearing

Registration No.TN-02-AR-8043 belonging to the 5th respondent, insured with

the appellant, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against

the said share Auto Rickshaw and caused the accident. In the accident, the

said Sujatha, wife of the 1st respondent and mother of the respondents 2 to 4

and one Pyarijan died and four other co-workers who travelled in the said

share Auto Rickshaw sustained grievous injuries. The respondents 1 to 4 filed

claim petition claiming compensation for the death of the said Sujatha. The

said claim petition was taken by the Tribunal along with other claim petitions

filed claiming compensation for the death of one Pyarijan and for the injuries

sustained by other persons. Common evidence was let in and common award

was passed. To substantiate their case, the claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.6

and marked 84 documents as Exs.P1 to P84. The Court documents were

marked as Exs.C1 and C2. The appellant/Insurance Company did not let in

any oral and documentary evidence. According to the appellant, accident has

occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of share Auto

Rickshaw. The appellant/Insurance Company contended that at the time of

accident, more than ten persons travelled in the share Auto Rickshaw and only

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

due to the same, the accident has occurred. To substantiate this contention,

the appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. The 5th

respondent, who is owner of the lorry even though filed counter affidavit

denying the manner of the accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 4, did

not appear before the Tribunal. In the absence of any contra evidence, the

Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6, held that the accident

occurred only due to negligent driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to

the 5th respondent, insured with the appellant and directed the

appellant/Insurance Company to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.

There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by

this Court.

13.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the respondents 1

to 4 claimed that the deceased was working as Labourer in Juice Factory and

was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. They have failed to

substantiate their stand with regard to avocation and income. In the absence

of any materials with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed

notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. The accident is of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

the year 2014 and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. The

Tribunal considering post-mortem certificate, fixed age of the deceased at 36

years. The Tribunal, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court

reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC (Sarla Verma and

others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), has rightly granted

40% enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier '15'. There

are four dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal deducted 1/4th towards

loss of dependency. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,12,000/-

towards loss of dependency. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

contended that the deceased would have been more than 40 years and the

Tribunal ought to have granted 25% enhancement instead of 40%

enhancement towards future prospects. The appellant has not produced any

material to show that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident

and claim of appellant is only based on presumption and assumption, which

cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-

towards loss of consortium to the respondents 1 to 4. The Tribunal has not

awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection to the respondents 1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

to 4. In view of the same, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal

towards loss of consortium is not interfered with. The Tribunal has also

awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenses. Considering Ex.P10/Medical bills, the Tribunal has awarded a sum

of Rs.1,03,067/- towards medical expenses. In the considered view of this

Court, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive

warranting interference by this Court.

14.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the

sum of Rs.18,05,100/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the

respondents 1 to 4, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The

appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount

awarded by the Tribunal 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. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4 are

permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the

apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and

costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. Consequently, connected

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

(V.M.V., J) (S.S., J) 09.06.2022 Index : Yes / No kj

To

1.Special Subordinate Judge No.II Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2.The Section Officer VR Section High Court Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022

V.M.VELUMANI,J.

and S.SOUNTHAR,J.

kj

C.M.A.No.1112 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.8161 of 2022

09.06.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis