Madras High Court
Magma Hdi General Insurance vs S.Chitra on 31 October, 2022
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.11614 of 2022
Magma HDI General Insurance
Company Limited
Old Office address
No.1, New Tank street
Valluvarkottam High Road
Nungambakkam
Chennai-600 004.
New Office Address
Navins Presiding, 3rd floor
New No.17/19, Old No.103
B Block, 3-A, Nelson Manickam Road
Aminjikarai
Chennai-600 029. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Chitra
2.M.Deepa
3.M.Vennila
4.M.Kesavan (Minor)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
(4th respondent/minor rep. by
her mother and next friend
1st respondent Chitra)
5.S.Krishnamani
6.R.Anbazhagan ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2021 made
in M.C.O.P.No.3225 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Murugavel
For RR1 to 5 : Mr.D.Ravichandran
for Mr.K.Premkumar
For R6 : Mr.A.Udhayachandiran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated
28.10.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.3225 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
2.The appellant/Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in
M.C.O.P.No.3225 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II
Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The respondents 1 to 5 filed the said
claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation for the
death of one S.Maniarasu, who died in the accident that took place on
18.04.2018.
3.According to the respondents 1 to 5, on the date of accident i.e., on
18.04.2018 at about 9.30 a.m., while the deceased Maniarasu was crossing
the road opposite to Karanithangal bus stop on Wallajahbad to Padappai
Road, 6th respondent, rider-cum-owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration
No.TN-21-BA-7813 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner, hit the
deceased and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Maniarasu
sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died in the hospital on the
same day. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 5 have filed the above claim
petition claiming compensation for the death of said Maniarasu against the 6th
respondent, rider-cum-owner of the motorcycle and appellant/Insurance
Company, insurer of the said motorcycle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
4.Though the 6th respondent, rider-cum-owner of the motorcycle,
entered appearance through counsel, he did not file any counter, called absent
and hence, set exparte on 28.02.2020.
5.The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement denying
the averments made in the claim petition and manner of the accident. The
appellant has also denied the validity of the vehicle records, driving license of
the 6th respondent and insurance coverage at the time of accident. Therefore,
the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 5.
In any event, the compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 5 is excessive
and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, wife of the deceased
examined herself as P.W.1, one Kothandam, who lodged complaint, was
examined as P.W.2, 3rd respondent, daughter of the deceased examined herself
as P.W.3, one Sundarrajan, Executive Engineer, P.W.D, where the deceased
was working at the time of accident, was examined as P.W.4 and 25
documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P25. The appellant/Insurance Company
did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by
6th respondent, rider-cum-owner of the motorcycle and directed the
appellant/Insurance Company, insurer of the said motorcycle to pay a sum of
Rs.63,07,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 5.
8.Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
contended that the Tribunal failed to deduct the Travelling Allowance and
other allowances from gross salary in arriving at the monthly income of the
deceased. The Tribunal while calculating the income tax for the assessment
year 2018 – 2019, has not properly applied the Income Tax slab for arriving
the annual income of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in calculating the
standard deductions from the gross salary in arriving at the monthly net
income of the deceased. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 made
submissions in support of the award passed by the Tribunal and contended
that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 & learned counsel
appearing for the 6th respondent and perused the entire materials on record.
12.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the
respondents 1 to 5 that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as
an Assistant Engineer in Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, WRD,
Environmental Cell Division and was earning a sum of Rs.73,449/- per
month. To substantiate the said contention, the respondents 1 to 5 examined
one Mr.Sundarrajan, Executive Engineer, PWD, WRD, Environmental Cell
Division, Taramani, Chennai, as P.W.4 and marked pay slip of the deceased
for the month of March 2018 as Ex.P7. As per Ex.P7, gross salary of the
deceased is Rs.73,449/- per month. The Tribunal considering the same, fixed
a sum of Rs.73,449/- as monthly income of the deceased and the same is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
proper. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
Tribunal failed to deduct City Compensatory Allowance, Medical Allowance
and other allowances from the gross salary while taking into consideration
the monthly income of the deceased. The accident occurred on 18.04.2018.
As per Ex.P22/PAN card, the date of birth of the deceased is 01.10.1962. On
the date of accident, the deceased had completed only 55 years. The Tribunal
erroneously fixed the age of the deceased as '56' years and applied multiplier
'9'. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2)
TNMAC 1 SC (Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another), the multiplier applicable is '11'. If correct multiplier '11' is
applied, the respondents 1 to 5 will be entitled to more compensation than the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependancy. In view
of applying wrong multiplier by the Tribunal, the amount granted by the
Tribunal towards loss of dependancy, without deducting City Compensatory
Allowance, Medical Allowance and other allowances and without properly
applying Income Tax slab, is not interfered with. The total compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive warranting interference by this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
sum of Rs.63,07,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondents 1 to 5, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The
appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount
awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3 & 5 are
permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The share amount of the
minor/4th respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the
Nationalised Banks till the minor attains majority. The 1st respondent,
mother of the minor, 4th respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued
interest once in three months for the welfare of the minor. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
(V.M.V., J) (S.M., J)
Index : Yes / No 31.10.2022
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
To
1.The II Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
kj
C.M.A.No.1570 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.11614 of 2022
31.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
