Madras High Court

The Branch Manager vs Nagarathinam on 14 September, 2022

                                                                               C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 14.09.2022

                                                        CORAM

                                     THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

                                           C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022
                                         and CMP.Nos.4107 & 4089 of 2022

                     C.M.A.No.562 of 2022 :

                     The Branch Manager
                     Liberty General Insurance Limited
                     10th Floor, Tower A Peninsula Business Part
                     Ganapath Rao, Kadam Marg Lower Parel
                     Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 013.             ... Appellant / 3rd Respondent

1.Nagarathinam

2.Shantha

3.Vanitha

4.Sanjai ... Respondents 1 to 4/ Petitioners

5.Suresh

6.M/s. Eagle Promoters No.119, Ist Floor Chittoor Main Road Katpadi, Vellore District. ... Respondents 5 & 6 / Respondents 1 & 2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022

C.M.A.No.568 of 2022 :

The Branch Manager Liberty General Insurance Limited 10th Floor, Tower A Peninsula Business Part Ganapath Rao, Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 013. ... Appellant / 3rd Respondent

1.Sujatha

2.Mythili

3.Sangeetha

4.Sathish

5.Rajesh

6.Revathi

7.Chitra ... Respondents 1 to 7/ Petitioners

8.Suresh

9.M/s. Eagle Promoters No.119, Ist Floor Chittoor Main Road Katpadi, Vellore District. ... Respondents 8 & 9 / Respondents 1 & 2

Prayer in CMA.No.562 of 2022 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015, dated 30.09.2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022

Prayer in CMA.No.568 of 2022 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015, dated 30.09.2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

                                       For Appellant    :   Mr.E.Rajadurai
                                       (in both CMAs)       for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates

                                       For Respondents :    Mr.C.Prabakaran [R1 to R4]
                                       (in CMA.562/2022)    R5 & R6 - Served [No appearance]

                                       For Respondents :    Mr.C.Prabakaran [R1 to R7]
                                       (in CMA.568/2022)    R8 & R9 - Served [No appearance]


                                                 COMMON JUDGMENT

The second respondent-Insurance Company has challenged the

Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gudiyatham, Vellore

District in M.C.O.P.Nos.224 and 250 of 2015 dated 30.09.2021 on the

ground that the Award passed by the Tribunal is rather high.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022

2. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the

Tribunal.

M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015

3. The petitioners are the sons and daughters of one Malliga, who

died in road accident on 07.07.2015. The said Malliga was aged 43 years at

the time of the accident and was working as a vegetable vendor. It is the

case of the petitioners that she was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-

. They had claimed a compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. for the

death of their mother. The Insurance Company has questioned the manner

of the accident and also stated that there has been a violation of the

provisions of the Act as well as the Policy. They had also questioned the age

and occupation of the deceased.

M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015

4. The petitioners are the husband and the children of one

Nagarathinam, who died in a road accident on 07.07.2015. The petitioners

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022

would contend that the deceased Nagarathinam was eking out her livelihood

by earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- and therefore, claimed a

compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-.

5. The counter in both the petitions are more or less identical and

the third respondent-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal

has passed a common Award in the claim petitions, which are the subject

matter of the appeals before this Court as well as other connected M.C.O.Ps.

The negligence was squarely placed on the shoulders of the driver of the first

respondent's tipper lorry.

6. As regards the quantum of compensation, with reference to the

petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of

Rs.16,37,000/- as compensation. As regards the M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015,

the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.13,75,000/-. In both the claim

petitions, the notional income that had been taken by the Tribunal was a

sum of Rs.7,500/-.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022

7. Challenging the said Award as being excessive and the

percentage of the deceased has been wrongly brought down in order to

increase the multiplier, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeals.

8. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials

available on record.

9. In the case of the deceased in M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015, the

Tribunal has taken the age at 34 years. The deceased could not have been

34 years, as her eldest daughter who is the second petitioner, was aged 19

years in the year 2015 at the time of the death of her mother. If the

deceased age is taken to be 34, then the deceased would have been 15 years,

when she gave birth to the second petitioner. Therefore, the age of the

deceased can be modified to 40 years. Consequently, the multiplier would

stand increased to 15. Taking into consideration the fact that the age of the

deceased has been taken by the Tribunal at 40 years instead of 34 years, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022

loss of dependency has to be re-worked and the same would be a sum of

Rs.14,17,500/-.[Rs.7,500 x 12 x 15 x 1/4 x 40%].

10. Similar is the case in M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015, the deceased is

stated to be aged 43 years. The first petitioner/the daughter is aged about 28

years, which would imply that her deceased mother should have aged 15

years at the time of her birth. Therefore, the age of the deceased should be

60 and the appropriate multiplier would be 9. That apart, it is seen that the

future prospects have been calculated, taking into consideration the age of

the deceased as 43. Since the age of the deceased is now fixed at 60 years,

the future prospects would work out to 10% as against 25% granted by the

Tribunal. Therefore, the modified award amount under the head of loss of

dependency is Rs.7,12,800/- [Rs.7,500 x 12 x 9 x 1/5 x 10%].

Accordingly, the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reworked as

below:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022

C.M.A.No.562 of 2022 (M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015)

S.No. Description Amount Amount Award awarded by awarded by confirmed Tribunal this Court or enhanced or granted or reduced 1 Loss of Rs. 15,12,200 Rs.14,17,500 Reduced Dependency 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 Rs. 40,000 Confirmed 2 Loss of Love & Rs. 40,000 Rs. 40,000 Confirmed Affection 3 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Confirmed 4 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Confirmed 5 Transportation Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Confirmed Charges TOTAL Rs. 16,37,000 Rs. 15,42,500 Reduced

C.M.A.No.568 of 2022 (M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022

S.No. Description Amount Amount Award awarded by awarded by confirmed Tribunal this Court or enhanced or granted or reduced 1 Loss of Rs. 12,60,000/- Rs. 7,12,800/- Reduced Dependency 2 Loss of Love & Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 1,40,000/- Enhanced Affection 3 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed 4 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed 5 Transportation Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed Charges TOTAL Rs. 13,75,000/- Rs. 8,97,800/- Reduced

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.562 & 568 of 2022

11. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly

allowed. The compensation of Rs. 16,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is

hereby modified to a sum of Rs. 15,42,500/- C.M.A.No.562 of 2022

(M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015) and the compensation of Rs.13,75,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified to a sum of Rs.8,97,800/-

C.M.A.No.568 of 2022 (M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015). Therefore, the

Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now

determined by this Court to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015 and

M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, (Sub-Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District), together with interest

@ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit