The Branch Manager vs Ramavathy
2022 Latest Caselaw 4785 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4785 Mad
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2022

Madras High Court

The Branch Manager vs Ramavathy on 10 March, 2022

                                                                                 C.M.A.No.3332 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 10.03.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                     THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                                C.M.A.No.3332 of 2019
                                                         and
                                                C.M.P.No.19401 of 2019

                  The Branch Manager,
                  United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
                  State Bank Building,
                  D.No.5-B11, 1st Floor,
                  Jageer Hussain Salai,
                  Rasipuram, Namakkal District.
                  Tamil Nadu.                                             ... Appellant
                                                           vs.
                  1.Ramavathy
                  2.Sheela
                  3.Naveen Kumar
                  4.K.Rajendran                                           ... Respondents

                  PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                  Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 against the award and decree dated 18.01.2019
                  made in M.C.O.P.No.474 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
                  Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Hosur.
                                  For Appellants                 : Mr.Dhiraviyanathan, A.
                                  For Respondents 1 to 3         : Mr.C.Prabakar
                                  For 4th Respondent             : Served – No Appearance




                  1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 C.M.A.No.3332 of 2019

                                                     JUDGMENT

The Appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the award

passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur in M.C.O.P.No.474

of 2017.

2. The said claim petition has been filed by the claimants seeking

compensation for the death of Venkateshappa, husband of the 1st claimant

and the father of the claimants 2 and 3. The accident had occurred only on

account of the negligence of the driver of the lorry, belonging to the

1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent had

remained exparte and only the 2nd respondent had contested the claim,

challenging the claim petition on the ground that there was no negligence

on the part of the driver of the lorry and it was the deceased Venkateshappa

who had fault.

3. The Tribunal below after considering the evidence on record

has passed the award for a sum of Rs.17,90,000/-. The Tribunal has taken

notional income of Rs.12,000/- and added a multiplier of 14 and after

adding 25% towards future prospects and deducting 1/3rd towards personal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3332 of 2019

expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal had arrived at a sum of

Rs.13,44,000/- towards loss of dependency.

4. Heard the learned counsels on either side.

5. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant it

appears that the notional income arrived at is slightly on the higher side and

that multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 14 was totally incorrect. As the

deceased was aged 47 years, the proper multiplier was 13 and the notional

income has been rightly arrived.

6. Considering the fact that though the claimants have let in

evidence to show the income of the deceased, however, the learned counsel

for the appellant is right in contending that the multiplier that has been

adopted by the Tribunal is wrong and it is only 13, that has to be adopted.

The loss of contribution to the family is now reworked as Rs.96,000/- x 13

= 12,48,000/-. In all other aspects the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.

The compensation is therefore reworked as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3332 of 2019

S.No. Description Amount Amount Award awarded by awarded by confirmed or Tribunal this Court enhanced or (Rs) (Rs) granted or reduced 1 Loss of 13,44,000/- 12,48,000/- Reduced Dependency 2 Loss of Love and 30,000/- 30,000/- Confirmed Affection 3 Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 4 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 5 Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 6 Loss of Consortium 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed 7 Loss of Future 3,36,000/- 3,12,000/- Reduced Prospects TOTAL 17,90,000/- 16,70,000/- Reduced by Rs.1,20,000/-

7. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed

and the compensation of Rs.17,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

reduced to a sum of Rs.16,70,000/- together with interest @ 7.5 % per

annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Insurance

Company is directed to deposit the said amount Rs.16,70,000/- to the credit

of M.C.O.P.No.474 of 2017 together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from

the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the

Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of six

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3332 of 2019

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. On such

deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount now

determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, as apportioned by