Madras High Court
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd vs Masthani on 2 February, 2023
C.M.A.No.2326 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A.No.2326 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.10562 of 2019
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.6, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 006. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Masthani
W/o.Late Navab
2.Chanma
W/o.Ansar
3.Kathar Basha
S/o.Late Navab
4.Minor Vahieth Bhasha
Rep. by Mother & N.F.N.Masthani
All residing at No.1/258, Mungkilan Street
J.J.Nagar, Theerthagiriyapattu, Vadakarai
Chennai 52.
5.Hepsy Joshuva, W/o.Joshuva,
No.33/83A, Elango Street,
Sakthi Nagar, Koduvalli,
Avadi, Chennai 55. ... Respondents
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2326 of 2019
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against
the Decree and Judgment dated 23rd March 2018 passed in MCOP.No.98 of
2016, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, III
Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari
For Respondents : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj (for R1 to R4)
R5 - No appearance
JUDGMENT
The Appeal has been filed against the Decree and Judgment 23.03.2018
passed in MCOP.No.98 of 2016, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III
Additional District Judge, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at
Poonamallee.
2.The Insurance Company is the Appellant herein. Challenging the
award passed in MCOP.No.98 of 2016, on the file of the III Additional District
Judge, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee, the Insurance
Company preferred this Appeal on the point of quantum of compensation. For
the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2326 of 2019
the trial Court.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned
counsel for the claim Petitioners.
4.Perusal of the records reveals that, at the time of the accident, the
deceased was said to be 40 years and was working as fish vendor. In
Ex.P.2/Death Report & Ex.P.4/Post mortem Certificate, the age of the deceased
was mentioned as 42 years and hence, the Tribunal fixed the age of the
deceased as 42 years at the time of the accident and applied multiplier method.
The Tribunal has fixed the notional income as Rs.9,000/- and added future
prospects also. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the Tribunal
arrived the pecuniary loss at Rs.14,17,416/-. Apart from that, funeral expenses,
loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation charges, loss of
estate were also added and total compensation was arrived at Rs.16,47,416/- by
the Tribunal.
5.Hence, I find that the pecuniary loss sustained by the claim Petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2326 of 2019
as calculated by the Tribunal is just and fair and in respect of other headings,
though there are some values on the higher side, it is just and fair. Therefore,
there is no merit in this Appeal.
6.Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.02.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
sai
To
The III Additional District Judge,
III Additional District Court,
Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2326 of 2019
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,
sai
C.M.A.No.2326 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.10562 of 2019
Dated: 02.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
