Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Vinotha on 3 March, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A.(MD).No.334 of 2018
The Branch Manager,
The National Insurance Company Limited
having Office at No.1754/56,
Manojiappa Street,
Thanjavur. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Vinotha
2.Minor Yukvaraj
3.Balasubramanian
4.Rani
5.P.Vignesh ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.
917 of 2016, dated 20.04.2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court, Thanjavur.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Balaji
for Mr.D.Sivaraman
For R1 to R4 : Mr.N.Ilango
For R5 : Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Thanjavur in M.C.O.P.No.917 of 2016, dated
20.04.2017, on the ground of liability, negligence and quantum.
2. The respondents 1 to 4, who are the legal representatives of the
deceased Radhakrishnan, claimed compensation before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal for the accident happened on 23.02.2015. In support of the
same, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked on the
side of the respondents 1 to 4/claimants and R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1
to R5 were marked on the side the appellant/Insurance Company. The
Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased, based upon the documents of
Passport and the Aadhaar Card. Based upon Ex.P7/Original Passport of
deceased Radhakrishnan, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the
deceased as Rs.7,500/- and considering the age of the deceased, added 50%
of the future prospects and awarded the compensation. Challenging the same,
the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
draws the attention of this Court to the fact that the claim petitioners have not
probablise the manner of the accident and relied upon Ex.R3/Xerox copy of
the judgment in C.C.No.79 of 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.3, Thanjavur, no doubt true that the driver of the offending vehicle was
acquitted. However, based upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2011 (1) TN LJ (Civil) 308, the Tribunal has held that the
standard of proof required for proving the guilt of the accused and the
criminal Court stands on a different footing as that of the Tribunal in
M.C.O.P. Cases and placed reliance upon P.W.2, independent witness, to
accept the submission made by the Insurance Company. No positive evidence
has been let in to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. In view of the clear and
cogent evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the records of the criminal Court, the
Tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle. Such finding does not require any interference, as the
same does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting
interference at the appellate stage. Accordingly, the rash and negligence on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant/Insurance
Company is hereby confirmed.
5. The date of birth of the deceased is 04.03.1980. The date of the
accident is 23.02.2015 and the deceased is aged about 34 years and 11
months at the time of accident. The Tribunal has rightly added 50% of the
future prospects, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Hence, the same cannot be found fault and correct multiplier has been
adopted as per the Sarala Varma Case. Hence, whether the notional income
fixed by the Tribunal is erroneous or not is the only point that needs to be
decided at this stage. Based upon Ex.P7/Original Passport of Radhakrishnan,
Ex.P9/Original Identity Card, Ex.P13/Money transaction receipts (4) and
Ex.P14/Xerox copy of flight ticket and also Ex.P17/Xerox copy of the Bank
Passbook of first claimant, which reveals frequency and quantum of the
amount sent by the deceased from the standard employment to the wife
stands established. Accordingly, the notional income of Rs.7,500/- fixed by
the Tribunal cannot be termed as excess. The quantum of compensation,
percentage of future prospects, multiplier and notional income are appears to
be just and reasonable and hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed
by the appellant/Insurance Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Index :Yes/No 03.03.2022
Internet:Yes/No
akv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
akv
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court,
Thanjavur.
C.M.A.(MD).No.334 of 2018
03.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
