Madras High Court
M/S.Reliance General Insurance ... vs Ragini on 6 September, 2022
CMA (MD)No.663 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CMA (MD)Nos.663 of 2017 and 856 of 2022
and CMP(MD) No.6880 of 2017
CMA(MD) No.663/2017
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
No.38B, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
8th Floor, Kolkata .. Appellant/2nd
respondent
Vs.
1.Ragini
2.Minor Prithiviraj
3.Minor Praveenkumar
4.Arumugam .. Respondents/
Petitioners
5.Pandi .. Respondent/
1st respondent
CMA(MD) No.856/2022
1.Ragini
2.Minor Prithiviraj
3.Minor Praveenkumar
4.Arumugam .. Appellants/
Petitioners
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)No.663 of 2017
Vs.
1.Pandi
2.M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
No.38B, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
8th Floor, Kolkata .. Respondents/
Respondents
Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal order dated
22.10.2016 made in MCOP No.961 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli.
For Appellant :
Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan
Insurance Company
For Respondents : Mr.T.Selvakumaran for R1 to
/ claimants R4
COMMON JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The Insurance Company and the claimant have filed the appeal and
cross appeal questioning the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Tirunelveli, in MCOP No.961/2013, dated 22.10.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)No.663 of 2017
2.The respondents in CMA No.663 of 2017, who were the claimants
before the Tribunal, filed a petition seeking for compensation on account of
the demise of one Prabhakar in a motor vehicle accident that took place on
21.07.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Tractor, which was
insured with the appellant Insurance Company.
3.Thc Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence and after considering the
claim of compensation made under various heads, passed an award granting
a total compensation of Rs.71,18,572/- along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance company has
questioned the award both on the ground of negligence and quantum. The
claimants have also filed a cross appeal in CMA(MD) No.856/2022 seeking
for enhancement of compensation.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel
for the Insurance Company.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the material available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)No.663 of 2017
6. On carefully going through the award passed by the Tribunal, it can
be seen that based on the evidence of P.W.1, the Tribunal has found that the
Driver of the Tractor had crossed the barricade that was put in the centre of
the road and he had, all of a sudden, crossed the road and as a result of the
same, the car that was driven by the deceased, dashed on the Tractor. The
Tribunal also considered the other materials, namely, the first information
report, report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and also the sketch and it
came to a categorical conclusion that the negligence has been clearly
established. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
findings of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence.
6. The only other issue that requires the consideration of this Court is
regarding the quantum that was fixed by the Tribunal. The evidence of
P.W.3 shows that the deceased had completed the probation period and
become a permanent employee. In view of the same, the Tribunal had also
considered the future prospects of the deceased.
7. The grievance of the Insurance Company is that while deducting
the income tax, the Tribunal did not make the deduction from the salary that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)No.663 of 2017
will be earned by the deceased on account of future prospects. On the other
hand, the claimants have sought for enhancement of compensation mainly
on the ground that the income tax was already deducted, even as per the
salary slip that was marked in the course of trial.
8. Insofar as the claim made by the respondents/claimants, the
Tribunal had rightly taken the monthly income as Rs.33,327/- and deducted
10% towards income tax from the yearly income. By doing so, the Tribunal
has taken into account the total income and rightly deducted income tax
from the total income.
9. While undertaking the exercise of deducting the income tax, the
Tribunal ought to have deducted the tax both from the actual salary that was
earned by the deceased as well as the salary, he would have earned towards
future prospects. No such deduction was made by the Tribunal and as a
result, the compensation has to be recalculated in the following manner:
1.Age of the deceased : 28 years
2.Monthly income : Rs.33,327/-
3.Loss on account of future prospects
(50% of salary) : Rs.49,971/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)No.663 of 2017
4.Total income
(2+3) : Rs.49,971/-
rounded off to
Rs.49,970/-
5.Annual income : Rs.5,99,640/-
(49,970x12 months)
6.deduction of income tax
10% : Rs.59,964/-
7.annual Income – income tax : Rs.5,39,676/-
8.Deduction towards personal income : 1/4th
9.Multiplier applicable : 17
10.Future loss of income : Rs.5,39,676x17
x3/4 =
Rs.68,80,869/-
11.General damages : Rs.1,60,000/-
+ Rs.30,000/-
+ Rs.70,70,869/-
10. In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
disposed of by modifying the award passed by the Tribunal from
Rs.71,18,562/- to Rs.70,70,869/- along with 7.5% interest from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)No.663 of 2017
11. The appellant insurance company shall deposit the modified
compensation amount along with accrued interest, after giving credit to the
amount that had already been deposited. Such deposit shall be made within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The claimant will be entitled to withdraw the amount in the manner
indicated by the Tribunal, after giving credit to the amount already
withdrawn by them, if any. No costs. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
06.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(I Additional District Judge),
Tirunelveli.
2.The VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)No.663 of 2017
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
RR
CMA (MD)Nos.663 of 2017 and 856 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
