Madras High Court
M/S.Royal Sundaram Alliance vs Mrs.A.Sangeetha on 11 March, 2022
CMA.2877 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2877 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.45 and 46, Whites Road,
Chennai-14 ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Mrs.A.Sangeetha
2.Sneha (Minor)
3.Vijay (Minor)
4.Ajith (Minor)
minors are rep. By their mother
and guardian Mrs.A.Sangeetha
5.K.Padmavathy
6.D.Sekar ... Respondents
[6th respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal]
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the decree and judgment made in M.C.O.P.No.2103 of 2010 on
the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes) at
Chennai dated 27.09.2013.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For respondents : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CMA.2877 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning
the negligence and quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.
2. It is a case of fatal. The claimants/respondents 1 to 5 herein, filed
MCOP.No.2103 of 2010 seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of
the death of K.Davamani in the accident that occurred on 03.04.2010. The
claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no
negligence on the part of offending vehicle. But only due to the parked lorry
bearing Reg.No.AP-03-8238, the accident occurred but the owner and insurer
of the said lorry were not arrayed as parties in the MCOP.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
materials available on record including the grounds of appeal.
5. Perusal of records show that on 03.04.2010 at about 3.15 hours,
when the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-23-BZ-4362 wherein the deceased and
P.W.2 were proceeding towards Chennai from Vellore, due to the rash driving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.2877 of 2014
of the driver of 6th respondent vehicle, deceased Davamani sustained grievous
head injuries and died. The narration of the incident in the FIR tallies with the
narration of P.W.2 in his deposition. The appellant/2nd respondent before the
Tribunal has not let in any evidence contradicting the claimant's side witness.
Further, the driver of the 6th respondent has not come to the witness box to
speak about the accident before the Tribunal. Since there was no contrary
evidence let in by the 6th respondent and the appellant herein, to disprove the
claim, the Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the 6th respondent's vehicle, the accident occurred. Therefore, the contentions
raised by the appellant questioning the negligence is not acceptable and
accordingly, the negligence fixed by the Tribunal is confirmed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that
excessive sum of Rs.11,86,000/- is awarded as compensation for the death of a
man aged 32 years whose occupation and income have not been proved.
7. On going through the Award, it is seen that the Tribunal taking
into consideration the avocation of the deceased who was a Loadman, fixed
Rs.6,500/- per month and applied the proper multiplier 16 following Sarla
Verma's case [2009 (2) TNMAC 1(SC)] and also adopting proper deduction,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.2877 of 2014
arrived at Rs.9,36,000/- as Pecuniary Loss. Further, the Tribunal on considering
the plight of young widow of the deceased, granted compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- under the head “Loss of Consortium”. For the care and guidance
of minor children, Rs.75,000/- was granted as compensation. Further,
Rs.25,000/-towards Funeral Expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards “Loss of love
and affection” has been granted as compensation. The amounts of
compensation awarded is the just compensation and in such view of the matter,
this court finds no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal warranting any
interference and accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.
8. By order dated 27.10.2014, this court directed the appellant to deposit
entire award amount to the credit of MCOP before the MACT and further
permitted the 1st respondent to withdraw 25% of her share amount with accrued
interest. Thereafter, by order dated 23.03.2015, this court further permitted
respondents 1 and 5 to withdraw 50% of the award amount and in so far as the
minor claimants 2 to 4 are concerned, the interest accrued in respect of their
share alone was permitted to be withdrawn by the 1st respondent. In such view
of the matter, the respondents 1 and 5/claimants are permitted to withdraw the
balance amount lying in the deposit without filing formal petition before the
Tribunal. In so far as respondents 2 to 4 are concerned, their share shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.2877 of 2014
deposited in a Nationalised Bank till they attain majority.
9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed on the above terms. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
nvsri
To
1. The Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
III Judge, Court of Small Causes, at Chennai
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.2877 of 2014
J.NISHA BANU, J.
nvsri
C.M.A.No.2877 of 2014
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
