Madras High Court

United India Insurance Co. ... vs Perumayee on 3 March, 2022

                                                                              CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED:        03.03.2022

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                            CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018
                                                        And
                                           C.M.P.Nos. 6176 & 6177 of 2018

                     C.M.A.No. 717 of 2018:

                     United India Insurance Co. Limited.,
                     R.P.R.Complex, By-pass Road
                     Near Government Hospital
                     Dharmapuri.                                          ... Appellant

                                                            Vs

                     1. Perumayee

                     2. Minor Mahendran

                     3. Minor. Pavithra

                     4. Sellammal

                     5. Saminathan                                        ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 14.07.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No. 694 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sankari.

C.M.A.No. 718 of 2018:

                     United India Insurance Co. Limited.,
                     R.P.R.Complex, By-pass Road
                     Near Government Hospital
                     Dharmapuri.                                        ... Appellant

                                                            Vs

                     1. Sarasa

                     2. Minor Krishnamurthi

                     3. Minor. Deepa

(Mionrs 2 & 3 declared as major vide order dated 19.11.2015 made in I.A.No. 2056/2015)

4. Chellammal

5. Saminathan ... Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 14.07.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No. 693 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sankari.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                             CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

                                           For Appellant in
                                           both C.M.As.        : Mr. D.Bhaskaran

                                           For RR 1 to 4 in
                                           both C.M.As.        : Mr. C.Kulanthaivel


                                           COMMON JUDGMENT

A common Judgment is delivered in both the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeals in view of the fact that arguments were advanced in unison with

respect to both the Appeals by the learned counsel for the appellant

Mr.D.Bhaskaran and also by the learned counsel for the respondents

Mr.C.Kulanthaivel.

2. It is also to be mentioned that though two Civil Miscellaneous

Appeals have been filed, they also arise from a common Judgment dated

14.07.2017 passed by the Sub Court, Sankari / Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No. 693 of 2009 and M.C.O.P.No. 694 of 2009.

3. Questioning the quantum of compensation granted in

M.C.O.P.No. 693 of 2009, the second respondent, United India Insurance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

Company had preferred C.M.A.No. 718 of 2018. Similarly, questioning the

quantum of compensation granted in M.C.O.P.No. 694 of 2009, the second

respondent, United India Insurance Company had preferred C.M.A.No. 717

of 2018.

4. As stated in the preamble portion, the appellant is deeply

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted. They have also taken a

stand in the grounds of Appeals and which aspect was also urged by

Mr.D.Bhaskaran that though there was a motor cycle involved in the

accident apart from the Lorry which was the insured vehicle, the driver of

the said motor vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The motor

cycle was also not insured.

5. But however since the tortfeaser vehicle is the vehicle insured

by the appellant herein, this ground raised in the grounds of appeal pales

into insignificance.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

6. A brief examination on the facts which necessitated the filing

of M.C.O.P.Nos. 693 & 694 of 2009 by the respective claimants, would

reveal that the deceased in M.C.O.P.No. 693 of 2009 Periyannan, aged

about 43 years and the deceased in M.C.O.P.No. 694 of 2009 Senthil, aged

about 33 years were working as Cleaner / Agriculturalist and

driver/agriculturalist respectively, and had both suffered grievous injuries to

which they succumbed and died.

7. Periyannan was the pillion rider in an Enfied Bullet, motor

cycle, bearing Registration No. TCJ 9218 on 18.08.2009 at around 2 p.m.,

near Murrkukara Selaththan House, Konganapuram to Omalur Main Road.

Senthil was the driver of the aforementioned Enfied Bullet. To their

misfortune, the Lorry bearing Registration No. TN -28-H-7077, which

according to the claimants, and which finding had also been affirmed by the

Tribunal was driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the

aforementioned Enfied Bullet cycle and both the driver Senthil and the

pillion rider Periyannan suffered serious injuries all over the body. They

were taken to Government Hospital at Edappadi. Senthil was also shifted to

Government Hospital, Salem. Unfortunately, both died.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

8. In this connection, a case has been registered by the Edapadi

Police Station in Crime No. 690 of 2009 under Sections 279, 338 & 304(A)

IPC against the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-28-H-7077.

It had been affirmed as a fact that it was the said Lorry which caused the

accident having been driven in a rash and negligent manner.

9. Let me again reiterate what was stated earlier that though

grounds had been raised by the appellant regarding the fact that Senthil did

not have driving license and that Enfied Bullet motor cycle was not covered

by an insurance policy, let me again sate that the said grounds cannot be

countenanced since, it was the insurer of the offending lorry, who has to

abide by the contract to indemnify the owner of the lorry for any accident

which occurred since a clear finding had been given that the lorry was the

tortfeasor vehicle.

10. Seeking compensation for the death of Periyannan, his widow

and minor son, minor daughter and mother had filed M.C.O.P.No. 693 of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

2009 and claiming compensation for the death of Senthil, his widow and

minor son, minor daughter and his parents had filed M.C.O.P.No. 694 of

2009.

11. A common Judgment was rendered by the Tribunal in both the

petitions. The discussions ofcourse were made independently. The

respective age of the two deceased were taken into consideration, the

probable income which they would have earned was also taken into

consideration and the loss of income was also determined.

12. It was found that Periyannan, was aged about 43 years at the

time of the accident and it was claimed that he was a driver and also did

agricultural work. The claimants stated that he earned Rs.10,000/- per

month. The Tribunal however proceeded to determine the notional monthly

income at Rs.6,500/- per month. With respect to Senthil, the Tribunal

determined that his age was 33 years at the time of accident and the

claimants therein also claimed that he earned about Rs.10,000/- per month

in his capacity as a cleaner and also an agricultural coolie but there again

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

the Tribunal interfered and adjudged that the monthly income would be

Rs.6,500/- per month. Having decided the age and monthly income, the

Tribunal then proceeded to deduct 1/4th from the monthly income and stated

that the balance 3/4th might be utilised by the family members, had they

been alive. Thereafter the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of '14' for

Periyannan, taking into consideration his age and multiplier of '16' for

Senthil taking into consideration his age. The Tribunal also added 30% as

future prospectus for Periyannan and 50% for Senthil, taking into

consideration their age. The Tribunal therefore calculated the pecuniary

loss or the notional income loss at Rs.6,500/- + 30% = 8,450/- - 1/4 th x 12 x

14 and granted a total amount of Rs.10,65,000/- for the deceased Periyannan

and for Senthil at Rs. Rs.6,500/- + 50% = 9,750/- - 1/4th x 12 x 16 and

granted a total amount of Rs.14,05,000/-. The compensation under various

other heads including loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of

estate, funeral expenses, medical expenses, pain and sufferings and

transport expenses were also granted.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

13. Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel for the appellant did not

take serious umbrage on the quantum awarded under such heads. With

respect to the income, they worked not only as driver/cleaner but were also

engaged as agriculturalists. In and around Salem, practically in the western

belt of the State, the field of agriculture provides quite lucrative income

raising demand for workers to work as agriculturalists. Demand is more for

agriculture coolies in that particular area.

14. I would therefore interfere with the monthly income of the

deceased persons and grant uniformly at Rs.7,000/- to both of them. With

respect to the future prospectus, let me grant 25% for Periyannan, which

would come to Rs.7,000/- + 25% = Rs.8,750/- and with respect to Senthil,

40% can be granted for future prospectus, which would come to Rs.7,000/-

+ 40% = 9,800/-. After deducting 1/4th from the monthly income and

adopting multiplier of '14', the pecuniary loss for Periyannan can be

determined at Rs.11,02,584/- [Rs.7,000/- + 25% - 1/4th = Rs.6,563/- x 12 x

14] and after deducting 1/4th from the monthly income and adopting

multiplier of '16', the pecuniary loss for Senthil can be determined at

Rs.14,11,200/- [Rs.9,800/- + 40% - 1/4th = Rs.7,350/- x 12 x 16].

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

15. Let me also interfere with the compensation granted under the

other heads uniformly and grant loss of consortium to the widows at

Rs.40,000/-, the loss towards love and affection, for the minor children and

the mother/father at Rs.40,000/- each and towards loss of estates at

Rs.15,000/- and towards funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and grant a sum of

Rs.10,000/- for transport charges. This expense would arise owing to

reluctance of any vehicle to transport, in the absence of ambulance a dead

body or even an injured person from the accident place.

16. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

stands modified as follows:-

(I) M.C.O.P.No. 693 of 2009:



                      Sl.               Head              Amount granted by     Amount granted
                      No.                                   the Tribunal         by this Court
                      1       Pecuniary Loss: Notional   Rs.10,65,000/-        Rs.11,02,584/-
                              monthly income by
                              adopting multiplier '14'

                      2       Loss of Consortium to wife Rs. 1,00,000/-        Rs.     40,000/-




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018


                      Sl.               Head               Amount granted by      Amount granted
                      No.                                    the Tribunal          by this Court
                      3       Love and affection          Rs. 3,50,000/-         Rs.    1,20,000/-
                              Rs.40,000/- each for
                              claimants 2 to 4
                      4       Loss of estate               Nil                   Rs.    15,000/-
                      5       Funeral expenses            Rs. 25,000/-           Rs.    15,000/-
                      6       Transport Expenses          Nil                    Rs.    10,000/-
                                               Total      Rs.15,40,000/-         Rs.13,02,584/-

17. Accordingly, this Court finds that the award of the Tribunal to

the extent of Rs.15,40,000/- is reduced to Rs.13,02,584/-.

(I) M.C.O.P.No. 694 of 2009:



                      Sl.               Head               Amount granted by      Amount granted
                      No.                                    the Tribunal          by this Court
                      1       Pecuniary Loss: Notional    Rs.14,05,000/-         Rs.14,11,200/-
                              monthly income by
                              adopting multiplier '14'

                      2       Loss of Consortium to wife Rs. 1,00,000/-          Rs.    40,000/-
                      3       Love and affection          Rs. 3,50,000/-         Rs.    1,60,000/-
                              Rs.40,000/- each for
                              claimants 2 to 5
                      4       Loss of estate               Nil                   Rs.    15,000/-




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018


                      Sl.               Head               Amount granted by      Amount granted
                      No.                                    the Tribunal          by this Court
                      5       Funeral expenses            Rs. 25,000/-           Rs.    15,000/-
                      6       Medical expenses            Rs. 90,000/-           Rs.    90,000/-
                      7.      Pain and sufferings         Rs. 50,000/-           Rs.    50,000/-
                      8.      Transport Expenses          NIL                    Rs.    10,000/-
                              Total amount                Rs.20,20,000/-         Rs. 17,91,200/-

18. Accordingly, this Court finds that the award of the Tribunal to

the extent of Rs.20,20,000/- is reduced to Rs.17,91,200/-.

19. It is brought to the notice of this Court by Mr.D.Bhaskaran,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant that entire award passed by the

Tribunal was deposited along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

20. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly

allowed as follows:-

(i) The award of the Tribunal is redetermined as aforesaid.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA Nos. 717 & 718 of 2018

(ii) The excess amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance

Company shall be refunded along with proportionate interest.

(iii) The first respondent/claimant is at liberty to withdraw her