Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Kanjana Devi on 17 November, 2022
CMA(MD)No.448 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CMA(MD) No.448 of 2017
and CMP(MD) No.4778 of 2017
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
TPHUB, KJR Complex
No.16 North Veli Street,
Madurai 625 001 ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Kanjana Devi
2.Jiopridiyonis
3.Roseline Delaney ...Respondents
(R3 declared as major and the
guardianship is discharged as
per order of this Court in CMP
No.5418 & 5419/2018)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the award made in MCOP No.148/2016 dated
29.11.2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.448 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)
The Insurance company has preferred this appeal against the order
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cum Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sivaganga in MCOP No.148/2016 dated 29.11.2016, allowing the
claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3 and granting a compensation of
a sum of Rs.41,96,904/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
2.The claimants filed the petition on the ground that one Joseph
Selvaraj, who was the husband of the first claimant and the father of the
second and third claimants, was travelling in a two wheeler in Madurai-
Thondi Main Road on 27.04.2015, at about 1.30 p.m., and near Kalaiyarkoil,
the car that was coming on the backside dashed on the two wheeler and as a
result, the said Joseph Selvaraj was thrown out of the vehicle and he sustained
grievous injuries. Unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries on the same
day at about 9.45 p.m.
3. The further case of the claimants is that the said Joseph Selvaraj was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.448 of 2017
working as a Headmaster in a Middle School and was earning more than
Rs.50,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants made their claim under various
heads and sought for a total compensation of Rs.60 lakhs.
4. The insurance company filed a counter stating that the claimants
must prove the negligence on the part of the car, which had dashed on the
backside of the two wheeler and that the compensation claimed by the
claimants is exorbitant.
5. The claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P11. None was examined on the side of the insurance company and no
documents were marked. The tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, came to a
conclusion that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent
driving on the part of the car driver whose car was insured with the appellant.
The tribunal also fixed the compensation under various heads and directed the
payment of total compensation of Rs.48,96,904/- along with 7.5% interest.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the respondents/claimants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.448 of 2017
7. The present appeal was filed by the Insurance Company mainly on
the ground that the tribunal must have adopted split multiplier method.
According to the insurance company, the deceased was aged about 52 years at
the time of his demise and he hardly had another six years for retirement and
thereafter he will get only pension. Therefore, it was contended that the
multiplier must be applied only by considering the remaining years of service.
8. The issue that has been raised by the insurance company is no longer
res integra and the law has been settled by the Apex Court in R.Valli and
others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2022(1)
TN MAC 289 and it was held as follows:
“8. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General
has referred to certain orders of the High Courts reported as Uma Shankar
& Ors. v. Revathy Vadivel & Ors.5, Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Ors. v. Sh.
Kitab Singh & Ors.6 and Union of India & Ors. v. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar &
Ors.7 to support the applicability of split multiplier i.e., multiplier upto the
date of retirement and another multiplier after retirement.
9. The judgments referred to by Mr. Tiwari are prior to the
enunciation of law by this Court in Pranay Sethi. Therefore, such
judgments no longer can be said to be good law as suitable multiplier is to
be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased in terms of para 59.7 of
the judgment in Pranay Sethi.
10. A three-Judge Bench in an order reported as United India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.448 of 2017
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alia Satwinder Kaur & Ors.8 has
applied the multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased even if he
was a bachelor. The Court held as under:
“48. Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud,
(2019) 5 SCC 554 traced out the law on this issue, and held
that the compensation is to be computed based on what the
deceased would have contributed to support the dependants.
In the case of the death of a married person, it is an
accepted norm that the age of the deceased would be 5 2014
SCC OnLine Mad 846 6 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2843 7
2000 SCC OnLine Kar 406 8 2020 SCC OnLine SC
410 taken into account. Thus, even in the case of a bachelor,
the same principle must be applied.”
11. Thus, we find that the method of determination of
compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run
counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, affirming the
judgment in Sarla Verma. Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the
date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 as per the
judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma approved by this Court in Pranay
Sethi.”
9. It is clear from the above that the two multipliers/split multiplier
method has been done away with since it runs counter to the decision of the
Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi 2017(2) TN
MAC 609 (SC) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
2009(2)TNMAC 1 (SC). In view of the same, the ground taken by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.448 of 2017
insurance company is not sustainable.
10. This Court finds that the tribunal has properly determined the
compensation payable under various heads and there is no ground to interfere
with the same.
11. In the result, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai in MCOP No.148/2016
dated 29.11.2016 is hereby upheld and this appeal stands dismissed. When
this appeal was entertained, the insurance company was directed to deposit
50% of the award amount. Since this appeal is dismissed, there shall be a
direction to the insurance company to deposit the balance award amount
along with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. No costs. consequently connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
[M.S.R.,J] [N.A.V.,J]
17.11.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.448 of 2017
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sivagangai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.448 of 2017
M.S. RAMESH, J.
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
RR
CMA(MD) No.448 of 2017
17.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
