Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Mahalingam (Died) on 2 November, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 31.10.2022
Delivered On : 24.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2012
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Mayiladuthurai, 30/6E, First Floor,
Deen Plaza, State Bank Road,
Mayiladuthurai. .. Appellant /2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Mahalingam (Died)
2.Chandra
3.Minor.Vignesh (Died)
(Minor R is rep.by his father and
natural guadian R1-Mahalingam) ... Respondents 1 to 3 / Petitioners
(R1 and R3 died and R2 is already on
record as LR of the deceased R1&R3,
vide Court order, dated 2.11.2022.
4.Mohamed Gazali ... 4th Respondent / 1st Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 08.07.2010, made in M.C.O.P.No.104
of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional
Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2012
For Appellant : Mr.K.Balasubramanian
For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhu for R2
: No appearance for R4
: R1&R3-Died
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award,dated
08.07.2010, made in M.C.O.P.No.104 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal cum Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. The appellant
herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants and
the fourth respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.
2. A brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.104 of 2008, is
as follows:
On 15.06.2007, when the deceased – Krishnan was travelling in a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-49-Y-6460, as a pillion rider, when the rider
of the two wheeler was driving the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner, keeping
the left side of the road, a bus, bearing Registration No.TN-51-U-3054, came from
behind the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
motorcycle. The deceased sustained injuries and he died on his way to the hospital.
The deceased was working as Manager in a private concern and was getting Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2012
5,000/- as salary. The petitioners are his dependents and they claimed as sum of Rs.
20,00,000/- as compensation.
3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in
M.C.O.P.No.104 of 2008, is as follows:
The owner and the insurer of the vehicle are necessary parties to the case.
The petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. The manner of the accident is
wrongly stated in the petition. It is wrong to state that the accident has happened
only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It was the motorcyclist,
who suddenly crossed the road, without noticing the traffic, dashed against the side
portion of the bus. The age, avocation and income of the deceased are all denied.
The petitioners are not the dependents of the deceased. The amount claimed is
exorbitant.
4. 2 witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked, on the side
of the claimants. No witness was examined and no document was marked, on the
side of the respondent. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.7,60,000/- as compensation.
5. Against the award, the second respondent / appellant has filed this
appeal on the following grounds:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2012
The Tribunal failed to note that the multiplier ought to have been adopted
on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased and the proper multiplier should
be '11' and not '18'. The Tribunal failed to consider that once a person get married,
his contribution to the parents will automatically reduced. There is no provision to
award compensation for loss of love and affection. The award is excessive.
6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the deceased died as a
bachelor and 50% of his income to be deducted for his own expenses and the
Tribunal is wrong in deducting 1/3rd of the income.
7. On the side of the claimant, it is stated that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is reasonable and prayed the appeal to be dismissed.
8. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and on the basis of
Ex.P1 and P8, the Tribunal fixed the liability on the appellant, which is reasonable.
The Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.5,000/-. It is seen that the Tribunal
failed to deduct any amount towards personal expenses. 50% of the income has to be
deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting 50%, the
deceased might have contributed Rs.2,500/- per month to his family members.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2012
9. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the age of the mother ought
to have been taken into consideration for fixing the multiplier. The law is now well
settled and the age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration for fixing the
multiplier. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 26 years, hence,
multiplier '17' is applicable. The loss of income is calculated as Rs.5,10,000/- (Rs.
2,500/- X 12 X 18 = Rs.5,10,000/-). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards
loss of love and affection for each of the claimant (Totally Rs.30,000/-) and Rs.
5,000/- towards transportation and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, which are
all reasonable.
10. The total compensation is calculated as follows:
Loss of income : Rs. 5,10,000/-
Loss of love and affection : Rs. 30,000/-
Transportation : Rs. 5,000/-
Extra nourishment : Rs. 5,000/-
........................
Total compensation : Rs.5,50,000/-
........................
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2012
11. This appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
(i) The quantum of compensation is reduced from Rs.7,60,000/- to
Rs.5,50,000/-.
(ii) The appellant herein - Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the
entire compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and with costs, within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) Since the first claimant and third claimants are dead, the second
claimant-Chandra, who is the LR of the first and third claimants, is entitled to
Rs.5,50,000/- along with interest at 7.5% and costs.
(iv) The claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if
there is any. Excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant.
24.11.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ls
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID – 19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2012
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kumbakonam
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2012
R. THARANI, J.
Ls
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2012
24.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
