Madras High Court
M/S.United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Rajeswari on 6 December, 2023
Author: G.Chandrasekharan
Bench: G.Chandrasekharan
C.M.A(MD)No.416 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.M.A(MD)No.416 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3704 of 2021
M/s.United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager having Ofice at
No.78, Kamaraj Salai,
Cauvery Nagar, Kulithalai,
Karur District. ... Appellant
.vs.
1.Rajeswari
2.Manish Kumar
(Minor 2nd respondent is declared as major and the
guardianship of his mother/first respondent is discharged
vide Court Order dated 02.11.2022 made in CMP(MD) No.9986
and 9987 of 2022 in C.M.A(MD) No.416 of 2021)
A.P.Palanisamy (died)
3.P.Chellammal
4.Arulvel ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.416 of 2021
16.10.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.410 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Trichy.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For R4 : Dispensed with
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation
awarded in MCOP No.410 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Trichy.
2. The respondents 1 to 3/claimants filed M.C.O.P.No.410 of 2015
claiming a compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- for the death of the deceased
Ravi, who was the husband of the first respondent, father of the second
respondent and son of third respondent. It is claimed that on 21.10.2014
at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased was standing with his motorcycle on the
extreme left side of Karur Main Road near Cauvery Nagar Branch Road
Junction. At that time, a car bearing Registration No.TN-47-X-7728 had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
come in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased.
As a result, the deceased suffered severe injuries and died of the injuries.
The deceased was an Ex-serviceman and at the time of accident, he
worked as Pharmacist in Government Hospital, Aranthangi. He was
earning a sum of Rs.28,635/- as monthly salary and Rs.10,563/- as
pension for his service in Indian Army. The respondents 1 to 3 are totally
depending on his income for running their life. In the absence of the
deceased, they lost his love and affection, income and also find it
difficult to lead their life.
3. In the counter, the appellant/Insurance Company disputed the
manner in which the accident had happened and the quantum of
compensation claimed is excessive.
4. During the enquiry before the Tribunal, on the side of the
claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were
marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and
no document was marked. Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were also marked.
5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
awarded a compensation of Rs.50,51,731/- as compensation.
6. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company mainly on the
ground that fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.39,198/-,
including his monthly income at Rs.28,635/- and Rs.10,563/- drawn by
him as pension from Indian Army, is not appropriate. It is further
submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.1, she admitted the receipt of
the pension of Rs.10,563/- and therefore, including pension amount of
Rs.10,563/- with the monthly income, is not correct. The appeal is filed
only on this ground.
7. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3
submitted that the pension is a statutory benefit and even if the deceased
died of natural causes, the family would continue to receive the family
pension and that cannot be deducted from the monthly income of the
deceased. In support of his submission, he produced the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs
Shashi Sharma and Others reported 2016(2) TN MAC 721 (SC) and it
is observed in this Judgment as follows:
Similarly, family pension is also earned by an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his
contribution in the service in terms of the service
conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The
heirs receive Family Pension even otherwise than the
accidental death. No correlation between the two.
8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
9. From the award of the Tribunal, it is found that he had taken the
monthly income as Pharmacist in the Government Hospital at
Rs.28,635/- and monthly pension at Rs.10,563/- for serving in Indian
army, so as to arrive at a monthly income at Rs.39,198/-. As per the
Judgment reported above, “the family pension is earned by an employee
for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service
and in terms of the service conditions and receivable by the heirs after his
death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the
accidental death. No correlation between the two”. Thus, it is evidently
made clear that the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for receiving
family pension. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
that P.W.1 admitted the receipt of Rs.10,563/- as family pension, in the
considered view of the Court, may not be correct. The reason is that after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the death of the pensioner, the dependent, who is entitled to get family
pension, would normally receive less than 50% of pension. Innocuous
admission allegedly made by P.W.1 cannot be considered to come to a
conclusion that she was receiving Rs.10,563/- as pension every month.
Admittedly, due to the death of the deceased, the family lost his income,
i.e., Rs.28,635/- from the State Government and Rs.10,563/- for serving
in the army. This is entirely a loss to the family. Therefore, the fixing the
monthly loss of income to the family at Rs.39,198/- and calculating the
compensation on this basis, cannot be faulted. In this view of the matter,
this Court finds there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by
the learned Special District Judge, Trichy and the same is confirmed.
10. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
order passed by the Tribunal is upheld. The appellant – Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, i.e., Rs.50,51,731/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation, less the
award amount already deposited if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No. 410
of 2015, dated 16.10.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special District Judge, Trichy, within a period of four weeks
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being
made by the appellant, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same,
as apportioned by the Tribunal, after following due process of law.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 06.12.2023
Internet :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
cp
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Judge, Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
cp
06.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
