Madras High Court
M/S. Reliance General Insurance ... vs Krishnan on 12 September, 2022
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.4519 of 2020
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Reliance House, 6th Floor, No.6,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Krishnan
2.Minor. G.Elavarasi
3.Minor. G.Bhuvaneshwari
4.Minor. G.Manigandan
(Minor respondents 2 to 4 are
represented by their Guardian
Krishnan, 1st respondent herein)
5.R.K.Venkatesan .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2019, made in
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
M.C.O.P.No.723 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For RR 1 to 4 : Ms.S.Ambika
for Mr.K.Sasindran
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 26.08.2019, made in
M.C.O.P.No.723 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.723 of 2016, on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The
respondents 1 to 4 / claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Rani, who died in the accident
that took place on 09.12.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
3.According to the respondents 1 to 4, on 09.12.2015 at about 10.30 a.m.,
while the deceased Rani was walking in the road at Basha Street, Choolaimedu
from West to East direction near Shop No.27/13, the rider of the motorcycle
bearing Registration No.TN 09 BL 0092, who was riding the motorcycle behind
the said Rani, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the said Rani and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Rani sustained
grievous injuries and died. Hence, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the claim petition
claiming compensation against the 5th respondent and appellant, being the owner
and insurer of the motorcycle respectively.
4.The 5th respondent – owner of the motorcycle remained exparte before the
Tribunal.
5.The appellant-Insurance Company, filed counter statement and denied all
the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition. The appellant
denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 4. The appellant
denied the validity of vehicle records, driving license of the rider of the motorcycle
and insurance coverage of the motorcycle at the time of accident. The insured
willfully violated the policy condition by riding the vehicle without valid driving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
license to ride the two wheeler. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any
compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. The respondents 1 to 4 are not entitled to
any interest for the period of delay caused by them in furnishing the medical
documents or disability certificate or any other documents. The respondents 1 to 4
have to prove that they are the dependants of the deceased. The appellant denied
the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of
compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 is highly excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition as against the appellant.
6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1, one
Mariyayi, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 22 documents
were marked as Exs.P1 to P22. The appellant examined one Anees Karimulla
Khan, Manager of the appellant as R.W.1 and marked five documents as Exs.R1 to
R5.
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence,
held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the
motorcycle belonging to 5th respondent and directed the appellant, being the insurer
of the motorcycle to pay a sum of Rs.25,30,000/- as compensation to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
respondents 1 to 4 at the first instance and recover the same from the 5th
respondent.
8.Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the
award dated 26.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.723 of 2016, the appellant has come
out with the present appeal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company
contended that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.25,30,000/- is
excessive. In the absence of any proof with regard to avocation and income of the
deceased, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income
of the deceased is excessive. The Tribunal erroneously granted enhancement at
40% towards future prospects. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
loss of love and affection and parental consortium are highly excessive and prayed
for reducing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 contended that
at the time of accident, the deceased was working as House Keeping Staff and was
earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal has fixed only a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased and the same is not
excessive. The deceased was aged 39 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal
has rightly granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The Tribunal has
not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium to 1st respondent. Hence, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is not
excessive. The respondents 2 to 4, who are the minor children of the deceased have
lost their Mother at their young age and hence, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal towards parental consortium is not excessive. 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 respondents 1 to 4 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 4 that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as House
Keeping Staff and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The respondents 1
to 4 have not filed any document to prove the avocation and income of the
deceased. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to avocation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
and income, the Tribunal considering the cost prevailing at the time of accident,
has fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The
accident is of the year 2015. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not
excessive. As per Ex.P10 / death certificate, the deceased was aged 39 years at the
time of accident. Following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & another], the Tribunal has rightly granted 40%
enhancement towards future prospects applied multiplier '15' and awarded
compensation towards loss of dependency, and the same is not excessive. A sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards parental consortium to respondents
2 to 4 is excessive and the same is modified as the respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to
a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium. In addition to the above,
the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and
affection to the respondents 2 to 4 which is not correct. Hence, the amount awarded
by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is liable to be set aside and it is
hereby set aside. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate
and transportation. The respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. The amounts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses and funeral expenses are just
and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount Award
No by Tribunal awarded by this confirmed or
(Rs) Court enhanced or
(Rs) granted
1. Loss of dependency 18,90,000/- 18,90,000/- Confirmed
2. Loss of love and affection 3,00,000/- - Set aside
3. Parental consortium to 3,00,000/- 1,20,000/- Reduced
respondents 2 to 4
4. Medical expenses 25,000/- 25,000/- Confirmed
5. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
6. Loss of estate - 15,000/- Granted
7. Transportation - 10,000/- Granted
Total Rs.25,30,000/- Rs.20,75,000/- Reduced by
Rs.4,55,000/-
13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.25,30,000/- is hereby reduced to
Rs.20,75,000/-. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award
amount now determined by this Court along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.723 of 2016, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai, at the first instance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
and recover the same from the 5th respondent. The Tribunal is directed to deposit
the award amount of the minor respondents 2 to 4 in any one of the Nationalized
Banks, till the minor respondents 2 to 4 attain majority. On such deposit, the 1st
respondent, being the Guardian of the minor respondents 2 to 4 is permitted to
withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare the minor
respondents 2 to 4. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying
in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.723 of 2016, if the entire award amount has been
already deposited by them. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed. No costs.
(V.M.V., J) (T.V.T.S., J)
12.09.2022
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The II Judge,
Motor Accidents 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.734 of 2020
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.734 of 2020
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
