Madras High Court
M/S.Reliance General Insurance ... vs K.Sumathi on 14 July, 2023
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6569 of 2020 and 2805 & of 2023
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
No.128, Sri Lakshmi Complex,
I-Floor, Bharathi Street,
Omalur Main Road,
Swarnapuri, Salem,
Salem Taluk, Salem District. ...Appellant
/Vs./
1.K.Sumathi
2.M.K.Surya Devi
3.Minor M.K.Priyanka
4.P.Sekar ...Respondents
[Minor petitioner rep.by mother and guardian 1st respondent]
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal - filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated
14.10.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2019 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Karur and allow
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.L.Prabakaran
for Mr.K.Balasubramani
For R4 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH , J.)
This appeal has been filed by the Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited, challenging order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Karur in
M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2019.
2.The core ground upon which the appeal has been preferred is
that the Tribunal ought not to have applied multiplier 11 uniformly in
deciding the compensation and instead ought to have adopted split
multiplier/service multiplier method. Though some other grounds also
figure in the grounds of appeal, this is the only effective ground.
3.The claimants before the Tribunal were the widow and two
daughters, one of whom is a minor, of late M.Kanagaraj (deceased). The
deceased had been driving a TVS-XL motorcycle on 11.09.2014 on
TNPL Road, Velayuthampalayam. While so, he had encountered a lorry
driving on the same road, that had shifted suddenly in the middle of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
road without any provocation. The motorcycle thus crashed into the lorry
and on account of this accident, the deceased had sustained grievous
injuries and was hospitalized for several months. He passed away on
07.05.2015 aged 53 years.
4.The claimants/respondents in appeal, approached the
Tribunal seeking compensation and in the award passed on 04.10.2019,
their claim had been accepted, the Tribunal applying multiplier 11 in
determining the compensation payable. The computation is as follows:
S.No. Heads Amount
1. Loss of income
(Rs.54,201-1/3=Rs.16,067/-
Rs.36,134+15% future prospects-
Rs.5,420/- =Rs.42,554/- Rs.49,36,668/-
10% for Income Tax -Rs.4,155/
Rs.37,999*12*11)
2. Loss of consortium to the first claimant Rs. 40,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection to claimants
1 & 2 – each Rs.25,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
third claimant Rs.50,000/-
4. Loss of belongings Rs. 15,000/-
5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
6. Medical Bills under Ex.B17 Rs. 1,54,053/-
7. Medical Bills under Ex.B18 Rs. 16,457/-
Total Rs.52,77,178/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
5.The appeal has been filed only on the aspect of quantification
of liability and not at all on liability itself. On the application of the
multiplier, Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, who appears for the appellant would
fairly draw attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of R.Valli and others vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Ltd., [2022 5 SCC 107] that has settled the position that application of
split multiplier is not an appropriate method for determining
compensation.
6.In the case of Sarala Varma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], it had been held
that the proper basis for selection of a multiplier would be the age of the
deceased at the time of death and not the number of years left in
employment.
7.The above judgment was affirmed in Reshma Kumari and
others vs. Madan Mohan and another [2013 (9) SCC 65] and the ratio of
both the aforesaid judgments have been are confirmed by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
company limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (16) SCC 680], the
relevant portion of which reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
“11.Thus, we find that the method of determination
of Compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous
and run counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi,
affirming the judgment in Sarala Varma. Since the deceased
was 54 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the
suitable multiplier would be 11 as per the judgment of this
Court in Sarala Varma approved by this Court in Pranay
Sethi.”
8.Inter alia, there was yet another line of judgments where the
Court had applied the split multiplier method, i.e., one multiplier up to
the date of retirement and another multiplier after the date of retirement.
Though judgments were rendered per incuriam pursuant to the judgement
in Pranay Sethi’s case and a clarification set out in this regard at
paragraph 9 of the judgment in R.Valli and others (supra).
9.In the case of R.Valli, the Hon'ble Supreme Court draws an
analogy from the judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited
vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others [2020 SCC online SC
410] where it was held that it is the age of the deceased that would be
taken into account for application of the multiplier. Thus, in such
circumstances, it would be irrelevant as to whether the deceased were a
bachelor or a married man as the relevant consideration would only be
his age.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
10.Thus, and in conclusion, the Bench found in R.Valli, that the
method of determining compensation applying two multipliers was
erroneous and a uniform multiplier was to be applied in all cases. With
this, the appeal of the Insurance Company is found to be bereft of merit
and liable to be dismissed and we do so.
11. By virtue of the above conclusion, the respondents would,
in fact, be entitled to a higher quantification of compensation. In our
considered view, this is perfectly in order, as and Mr.Srinivaasaraghavan
fairly agrees, the purpose of the present litigation is to arrive at a fair and
proper determination of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
12. A Memo dated 14.07.2023 has been filed by the appellant
determining the compensation payable, as below:
Memorandum of Calculation filed by the appellant:
a.Monthly income
(Ex.P14) : Rs.54,201/-
b.Multiplier : 11
c.Loss of future prospects : 15% -Rs.8,130.15
d.Monthly salary (A+B) : Rs.54,201+8,130.15=
Rs.62,331.15
e.Annual Income : Rs.62,331.15*12=
Rs.7,47,973.80
f.Detection for personal
expenses : 1/3
g.Annual income after
detection :Rs.7,47,973.80*2/3(contribution)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
h.Loss of annual income : Rs.4,98,649.20*11
I.Funeral expenses : Rs.25,000/-
Loss of life estate : Rs.15,000/-
Loss of consortium and
love and affection (Wife
and 2 children) : Rs.1,20,000/-
j.Total loss of income and
general damages : (54,85,141.20+25,000+
15,000+1,20,000=56,45,141.20
13. At the time of admission on 04.01.2021, the Insurance
Company was directed to deposit the compensation awarded in entirety,
and this order is stated to have been complied with. There is thus now, a
direction to the Appellant to deposit the amount of compensation as
computed as above, less the amount already deposited, within a period of
four weeks from date of receipt of this order to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.
78 of 2019.
14.Respondents 1 and 2 may thereafter take necessary steps for
withdrawal of the same before the Tribunal, by production of requisite
documents, subject to remittance of court fee, if any, in respect of the
enhanced compensation.
15.The compensation of the minor claimant shall be kept in a
Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank, till she attains majority. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
mother / guardian of the minor is permitted to withdraw the interest
accrued thereon once in three months directly from the bank.
16.No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
14.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Additional District Court, Karur.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
ta
Order made in
C.M.A.(MD)No.648 of 2020
Dated:
14.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
