Madras High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Subbulakshmi on 11 March, 2022
C.M.A.Nos.2235 & 2236 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 11.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.2235 and 2236 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.15846 of 2016
C.M.A.No.2235 of 2016
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.66, II Floor, City Centre Complex,
Thirumalai Pillai Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Subbulakshmi
2.Minor Prabhu
3.Minor Dinesh Kumar
(R2 and R3 declared as major vide
Judgment dated 11.03.2022)
4.Lourdhumary
5.Ravichandran
... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2235 & 2236 of 2016
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2014 made
in MCOP No.725 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III
Additional District Court), Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
for R1 to R4
C.M.A.No.2236 of 2016
1.Subbulakshmi
2.Minor Prabhu
(R2 declared as major vide
Judgment dated 11.03.2022)
3.Dinesh Kumar
(3rd appellant declared as major and his mother
next friend Subbulakshmi discharged from
Guardianship vide Court order dated 23.08.2021
in CMP Nos.12400 & 12406 of 2021)
4.Lourdhu Mary ... Appellants
Vs.
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2235 & 2236 of 2016
1.Ravichandran
2.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.66, II Floor, City Centre Complex,
Thirumalai Pillai Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2014 made
in MCOP No.725 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III
Additional District Court), Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy for R2
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Common Judgment of the Court was made by
K.KALYANASUNDARAM.,J)
C.M.A.No.2235 of 2016 has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III
Additional District Court), Poonamallee in MCOP No.725 of 2011. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2235 & 2236 of 2016
claimants in the said Original Petition have come up with C.M.A.No.2236 of
2016 seeking enhancement of compensation. Since both the appeals arise out of
the same order passed in the MCOP dated 21.01.2014, both are heard together
and disposed of by its common order. For the purpose of clarity, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.
2.The facts of the case in nutshell:-
On 22.04.2011, at about 10.30 a.m, the deceased K.Sivaramakrishnan was
riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-57-J-2904 at Maduravoyal-Tambaram
Bypass Road, Near '0' point. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing
Reg.No.PY-01-H-9198 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly,
applied the brake, resulting, the deceased hit behind the said lorry. In the
accident, he sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to the hospital. Later,
he died on the same day. The claimants are his wife, minor children and mother.
The claimants has stated that the deceased died at the age of 45 years and he was
working a 'Faculty' at State Institute of Rural Development, Maraimalainagar and
he was paid Rs.36,978/- per month. According to the claimants, the accident had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2235 & 2236 of 2016
occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and
hence, the owner and insurer of the said lorry are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
3.The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company disputing the
averments made in the claim petition.
4.Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the negligence, the claimants
examined P.W.2, Udayakumar, who is said to have witnessed the accident. On the
side of the Insurance Company, Anbu-Sub-Inspector of Police examined as
R.W.1.
5.It is seen that a case was registered against the deceased based on the
complaint given by the Driver of the lorry and First Information Report was
marked as Ex.P.1. Since he died, the criminal case was dropped and the closure
report was marked as Ex.P.2. Believing the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.P.1, the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased hit against the stationary lorry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2235 & 2236 of 2016
and the evidence of P.W.2 was disbelieved by the Tribunal. R.W.1 has further
stated that the vehicle was parked in the non-parking area. Hence, the Tribunal
fixed the negligence on the deceased at 70% and the driver of the lorry at 30%.
6.Though the learned counsels appearing for the Insurance Company and
the claimants have vehemently contended that the negligence fixed by the
Tribunal is not sustainable, after perusing the evidence available on record, we
are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of
evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.P.1, has rightly fixed the negligence at the ratio of
70:30 and the same is confirmed.
7.With regard to the quantum, Ex.P.12-Transfer Certificate shows that the
deceased was born on 30.04.1964, hence, at the time of accident, he was 47 years
old. Income Tax Return was marked as Ex.P.8 and the Salary Certificate was
produced as Ex.P.15, which show that the deceased was paid Rs.36,978/- per
month. As per the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2235 & 2236 of 2016
Sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), the claimants would
be entitled for 30% addition towards future prospects, but the Tribunal added
15%. Hence, 30% is added towards future prospects and the total income of the
deceased is arrived Rs.48,071/- (36978+11093). Out of which, ¼th is deducted
towards his personal expenses. Hence, contribution to the family comes to
Rs.36,054/- (48071-12071). By applying multiplier '13', the loss of dependency
is assessed as Rs.56,24,424/- (36054x12x13). As per the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram
and others reported in 2018(1) TN MAC 452 (SC), the claimants are entitled to
Rs.40,000/- each towards parental and filial consortium, which comes to
Rs.1,20,000/-. Hence, the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards loss of
consortium is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/-. The amount of Rs.30,000/- towards
loss of love and affection is set aside. The amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded
towards funeral expenses and Rs.3,01,201/- towards medical expenses are
confirmed. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. The rate of interest
fixed by the Tribunal as 7.5% is also confirmed. Accordingly, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is re-quantified as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2235 & 2236 of 2016
Amount awarded Re-quantified
Heads by the Tribunal Amount by this Status
Rs. Court Rs.
Loss of dependency 49,75,464/- 56,24,424/- enhanced
Medical Expenses 3,01,201/- 3,01,201/- confirmed
Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- confirmed
Loss of consortium 20,000/- 1,20,000/- enhanced
Loss of Love and Affection 30,000/- Nil set aside
Loss of Estate Nil 15,000/- granted
Total 53,41,665/- 60,75,625/- enhanced
After deducting 70% for
16,02,500/- 18,22,687/- enhanced
his negligence
Rounded off to 18,23,000/-
8.The claim petition is of the year 2011 and at that relevant point of time,
the claimants 2 and 3 were minors and now, they have become major. So, they
are declared as majors and the Tribunal is hereby directed to disburse their share.
It is represented that the fourth claimant/Loordhu Mary died during the pendency
of these appeals.
9. In such view of the matter, CMA No.2236 of 2016 filed by the claimants
is partly allowed and CMA No.2235 of 2016 filed by the Insurance Company is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2235 & 2236 of 2016
dismissed. The award amount of Rs.16,02,500/- is enhanced to Rs.18,23,000/-.
Out of which, the first claimant is entitled to Rs.10,23,000/- and the claimants 2
and 3 are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- each. The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the modified award with accrued interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the claimants 1, 2 & 3 are permitted
to withdraw their share, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with
proportionate interest and costs. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
11.03.2022
skn
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Principal District Court), Perambalur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2235 & 2236 of 2016
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.2235 and 2236 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.15846 of 2016
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
