Reliance General Insurance ... vs Arumugam
2023 Latest Caselaw 6646 Mad

                                                                              C.M.A.No.1244 of 2023

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 20.06.2023

                                                      CORAM:

                           THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
                                            AND
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

                                            C.M.A.No.1244 of 2023

                  Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
                  Having Office at
                  Old No.15, new No.29, 3rd Floor,
                  North Usman Road, T. Nagar,
                  Chennai 600 017                          ... Appellant/ Petitioner


                                                        Vs.

                  1. Arumugam

                  2. Muniyammal                                 ...Respondents/ Petitioners

                  3. Gokilakrishnan                              ...Respondent/ Respondent

                  PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                  Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 13.12.2022
                  passed in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2016 on the file of MACT Subordinate Judge,
                  Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.
                                      For Appellant           : P.Suresh Srinivasan

                                                 ******
                                               JUDGMENT

__________ Page No:1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1244 of 2023

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated

13.12.2022 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2017.

2. The deceased, by name Palanisamy, was a tanker lorry driver aged

about 26 years, who met with the accident on 25.06.2017. Feeling aggrieved

by the quantum of Award i.e. awarding a sum of Rs.27,90,200/-, the present

appeal has been filed.

3. Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that once the Tribunal had concluded that there is no proof of direct

employment, notional income could not have been taken at Rs.19,000/- and

it should have been taken only as Rs.15,000/-.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the appellant. The deceased was aged 26 years and he is said to have

been a tanker lorry driver. Considering all the facts in total, the Tribunal has

taken Rs.19,000/- as the self-employed income. We donot find the same as

__________ Page No:2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1244 of 2023

excessive or unreasonable. As a matter of fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India recently in Manusha Sreekumar and Others Vs. United India

Insurance Company Limited reported in (2022) SCC online SC 1441 held

that whenever the claimants are unable to produce salary certificate, the

Court can fix the notional income by considering in minimum wages

notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not completely

detached from reality and accordingly determine the income of the deceased.

In respect of the driver, after taking into account the wages fixed in Kerala in

respect of an accident which took place in the year 2015 ultimately fixed the

notional income at Rs.15,600/- per month. This Court also in respect of the

accidents taking place in the year 2014-15 has fixed Rs.15,000/- as notional

income. In the instant case, the deceased is said to have been a tanker lorry

driver. Therefore, considering the fact that he is a tanker lorry driver and the

accident had taken place in the year 2017, the amount of Rs.19,000/- taken

as notional income by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and is in tune with

the realistic circumstances. We also further find that in respect of the filial

consortium of the parent, only one sum of Rs.44,000/- is granted while as

per the judgment in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.

Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130,

__________ Page No:3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1244 of 2023

both the parents are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each.

5. In that view of matter, in any event, we do not find the Award of the

Trial Court as excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, finding no merit, this

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

                                                                  (J.N.B., J.)     (D.B.C., J.)
                                                                          20.06.2023

                  Index                 : Yes
                  Internet              : Yes
                  Neutral Citation      : Yes
                  Speaking Order
                  sts

                  To:

The Court of the Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District

J. NISHA BANU, J., and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,

__________ Page No:4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1244 of 2023

sts

Judgment made in C.M.A.No.1244 of 2023

Dated:

20.06.2023

__________ Page No:5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis