Chendrayan vs K.Samraj
2022 Latest Caselaw 6758 Mad

                                                                          CMA.No.2998 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 31.03.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                     THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                               C.M.A.No.2998 of 2019

                     1.Chendrayan
                     2.Madhu
                     3.Krishnan
                     4.Kumar                                                   ... Appellants

                                                          Vs
                     1.K.Samraj
                     2.The Divisional Manager,
                       National Insurance Company Limited,
                       Divisional Office,
                       50-Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.                       ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2013
                     in MCOP.NO.671 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
                     Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.


                                      For Appellants    : Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan

                                      For Respondents : Mrs.R.Sree Vidhya for R2.


                     1/4


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  CMA.No.2998 of 2019


                                                      JUDGMENT

The claimants are before this Court challenging the award passed

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge,

Krishnagiri in MCOP.No.671 of 2011 on the ground that the Tribunal has

exonerated the Insurance Company and directed only the 1st respondent to

pay the compensation on the ground that the rider of the offending vehicle

which is insured with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company did not possess

a valid and effective driving license.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that

the Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the

compensation and thereafter recover the same from the 1st respondent for

violation of the policy condition. The other grievance of the appellants is

that the multiplier '5' which has been adopted is wrong since the deceased

was aged 65 years and the proper multiplier must be '7'.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in

the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivraj Vs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2998 of 2019

Rajendra and another reported in 2018 (10) SCC 432 fairly conceded that

since it is a violation of policy condition and as the claimants are the third

party, the Insurance Company had to pay the compensation amount with

liberty to recover it from the owner. As regards the multiplier the deceased

is aged 65 years therefore the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is '7'.

4. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the

limited extent of adopting the multiplier of '7' instead of the multiplier '5' to

arrive at the loss of income. Therefore, the working would be as follows:-

Loss of Income = Rs.36,000x7 = Rs.2,52,000/-

                                  Funeral expenses                             = Rs. 10,000/-

                                  Loss of love and affection                   = Rs. 10,000/-

                                                                               -----------------------
                                  Total                                        = Rs.2,72,000/-
                                                                               -----------------------

5. Thus, the total compensation is enhanced to a sum of

Rs.2,72,000/-. The said sum together with interest shall be paid by the

2nd respondent Insurance Company who shall thereafter recover it from the

1st respondent. In all other aspects the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2998 of 2019

P.T.ASHA, J.

dsa

6. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed.

No costs.

31.03.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order dsa To The Principal District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.

CMA No.2998 of 2019

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis