Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. ... vs Ashokan on 6 March, 2023
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
and CMP.No.5920 of 2020
The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited,
No.4, Esplanade, Broadway,
Chennai – 108. ...Appellant
vs.
1.Ashokan
2.Vennila
3.Gowthaman
4.Manimegalan
5.Sivakamy
6.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building,
Chennai – 3. … Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal cum Special Sub Court II & Court of Small Causes, Chennai made
in M.C.O.P.No.9001/2015 dated 09.08.2019 and allow the appeal with
costs.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.E.Chandrasekaran
For R1 to R5 : Mr.K.Sasidran
For R6 : Mr.K.Aswini Devi
*****
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed to set aside the order of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Special Sub Court II & Court of Small
Causes, Chennai made in M.C.O.P.No.9001/2015 dated 09.08.2019 and
allow the appeal with costs. The said appeal has been filed by the insurance
company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
2.The facts leading to the appeal are as follows:
The deceased was walking along the roadside near Pullah Avenue
Junction, EVR Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai. At that time a lorry belonging
to the first respondent Corporation driven by it's driver in a rash and
negligent manner dashed against the deceased resulting in her death.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
3.The claimants, the children of the deceased filed the claim petition
claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, as compensation. The claimants stated
that the deceased was aged about 69 years at the time of the accident and
was self-employed. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning a
sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. The first respondent Corporation remained
ex-parte and the second respondent contested the claim petition.
4.The second respondent in it's counter denied all the contentions
raised in the claim petition. The second respondent disputed the negligence,
liability and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants.
5.Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal the claimants examined
two witnesses and marked Ex.A1 to A18. The second respondent neither
examined any witnesses nor filed any documents.
6.The Claims Tribunal on an assessment of entire evidence on record
awarded a sum of Rs.7,95,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
compensation to the claimants.
7.The insurance company has filed the above appeal questioning the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
8.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the absence
of any evidence the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased
at Rs.7,000/- per month, moreso, when admittedly she was aged about 69
years at the time of the accident. He further submitted that the Tribunal
erred in awarding double compensation under the heads of loss of love and
affection and parental consortium. The learned counsel therefore submitted
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was exorbitant and the same
needed to be modified.
9.The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants on the other hand
submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record the Tribunal had
rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and fair
compensation. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants therefore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
submitted that the appeal was meritless and the same deserved to be
dismissed.
10.I have heard both the learned counsel and have perused the
records.
11.It is undisputed that the deceased was aged about 69 years at the
time of the accident. Though the respondents/claimants claim that the
deceased was self-employee and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month,
absolutely no iota of evidence is filed in support of the same. In my view,
the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-
per month, moreso, when there was absolutely no evidence in support of the
income of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased and also in
view of the fact that all the claimants are between 54 and 39 years of age, in
my view the income assessed by the Tribunal is excessive. Under the facts
and circumstances of the case and considering that the accident took place
in 2015, the income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.4,500/- per
month. Hence the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.4,500/- p.m.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
Towards the personal expenses of the deceased 1/4th has to be deducted and
therefore the compensation towards loss of income would be Rs.2,02,500/-
(4500 x ¼ = 1125; 4500 – 1125 = 3375 x 12 x 5 = 2,02,500). I am in
agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought
not to have awarded double compensation towards loss of love and affection
and parental consortium. I find that the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-
each towards loss of parental consortium. The compensation towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate assessed at Rs.15,000/- respectively is in
order.
12.In view of the said discussion, I am of the view that the award of
the Tribunal needs to be modified and the same is modified as follows:
Particulars Tribunal Court
Loss of dependency Rs.3,15,000/- Rs.2,02,500/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Love and affection and Rs.2,50,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
Parental consortium Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.7,95,200/- Rs.4,32,500/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
13.The claimants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.4,32,500/- along
with interest at the rate of 7.5%, the same shall be calculated from the date
of filing of this appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the insurance company that 50% of the award amount has already been
deposited in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court. Hence, the
Insurance company is directed to deposit the balance amount within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
deposit, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount as per
the apportionment made by the Tribunal by making proper application
before the Tribunal.
14.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.03.2023
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
ah
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum
Special Sub Court II & Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building,
Chennai – 3.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court,
Madras.
N.MALA, J.
ah
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
and CMP.No.5920 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.948 of 2020
06.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
