Madras High Court
The Manager vs S.Lakshmi Devi on 22 December, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.1291 of 2020
THE MANAGER
M/S. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd.,
LUZ CHURCH ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 4.
...Appellant
Vs
1 S.LAKSHMI DEVI
2 MINOR. LALITHASRI
3 MINOR. DEEPAK
S/O. SURESH ( MINORS REP BY THEIR MOTHER
LAKSHMIDEVI BAJANAI KOIL ST BANRUTTI
KANDIGAI SRIPERUMBUTHUR TK KANCHEEPURAM DT.)
4 KANNIAMMAL
5 M/S. VANTEC LOGISTICS INDIA
PVT LTD. BANGALOW NO.3 NO.124 VALLAM
VILLAGE KANCHIPURAM.
...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 30.04.2019 made in
MCOP.Nos.118 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
District & Sessions Judge, Additional District court, Fast Track Court,
Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sree Vidhya
For Respondents : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj RR1 to 4
JUDGMENT
This appellant/Insurance company has come forward with the present
appeal against the award and decree dated 30.04.2019 made in
MCOP.Nos.118 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
District & Sessions Judge, Additional District court, Fast Track Court,
Kancheepuram.
2.Brief fact which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as
follows:
On 11.11.2014 at about 15.30 hrs. The deceased Suresh was gone in
his hero Honda Passion Plus Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.TN 21 H 6847
from Kandigai towards Varanavasi and while so the deceased was gone on
Oragadam to Walajabad Road near Indo Space Company, Banruti Kandigai,
the 5th respondent Eicher Lorry bearing Reg. No.TN 231 AU 9387 whch was
proceeding on the backside and the same was driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed at the backside of the deceased motorcycle
and thereby, the said Suresh died on the spot. Thereafter, the dependents of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the deceased have filed a claim petition under Section 166 M.V.Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- before the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kancheepuram and the same was taken
on file as MCOP. No118 of 2015.
3. Before the Tribunal, during trial, in order to prove the case, the
claimants have examined three witnesses viz., PW1 and PW2 and marked
Exs.P1 to P9, On the side of the Insurance Company, one witness was
examined and five documents was marked. The Tribunal, considering the
pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition and awarded
a sum of Rs.24,89,200/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest,
aggrieved by the said award dated 30.04.2019, the appellant/insurance
company has filed the present appeal before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the income of
the deceased was not proved before the Tribunal through any valid proof.
That being so, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.12,000/- per
month, which is unsustainable one. The other heads awarded by the
Tribunal is highly excessive and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is liable to be quashed.
5. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the accident
had happened only due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the
lorry and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation. At the time of the accident, the deceased is aged about 31
years and was working as a driver and he was earned a sum of Rs.15,000/-
per month as salary and the same was proved before the Tribunal through
Bank Statement. The Tribunal, considering the entire facts, has righty
passed the award, which does not require any interference.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
7. On perusal of the award dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Salem, it is seen that the accident has not been
disputed, and only the cause of accident, i.e. Whether the accident had
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry or
due to the negligence of the claimant, was disputed. Though it was proved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
before the Tribunal that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Therefore, the Tribunal has come
to the conclusion that the appellant/ insurance company is liable to
compensate the claimants for the death the said Suresh.
8. On careful perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is seen that
the Tribunal has adopted the correct multiplier method and correctly
assessed the loss of income. Hence, the same does not require any
interference by this Court. The amounts awarded towards other heads are
also very reasonable and hence the same are also confirmed.
9. In view of the above, this Court do not find any error in the award
dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Tribunal and there is no merit in the appeal
and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
award passed by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents/claimants
is hereby confirmed. The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit
the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 claimants
are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount with interest and
costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, by filing
necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
22.12.2023
rli
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
rli
To
The Judge,
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District &
Sessions Judge, Additional District court,
Fast Track Court, Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Rli
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
