Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs C.Ramesh on 10 March, 2023
C.M.A. (MD)No.1227 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.1227 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.12597 of 2022
The Branch Manager,
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,
249, 3rd Floor, Rekha Towers,
Kamarajar Salai, Madurai – 625 009. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.C.Ramesh
2.Rajamani
3.Jeyakumar
4.R.Vadivelkumar
... Respondents 1 to 4/ Petitioners
5.C.Anbuselvi ... 5th respondent/ 1st Respondent
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Employee Compensation Act, against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2022
made in M.A.C.O.P.No.705 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Additional District Judge / Presiding Officer of Pudukottai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.1227 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondents : Mr.G.Sridharan for R1 to R4
No Appearance for R5
JUDGMENT
Challenging the quantum fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Additional District Judge / Presiding Officer of Pudukottai, in M.A.C.O.P.No.705
of 2016 dated 29.07.2022, the appellant – Insurance Company has filed this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per
their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal, are as follows:-
The deceased Suresh Kumar was a bachelor, who was aged about 30 years
at the time of accident and while he was driving his car bearing Registration
No.TN 55 AM 8458, on 26.10.2016 at 2.00 a.m., to attend his work at Madurai
from Pudukkottai, proceeding from South to North direction, a Lorry bearing
Registration TN-43-5486, owned by the first respondent, which was going in front
of the Car, suddenly stopped without showing any signal. Therefore, the car
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.1227 of 2022
driven by the deceased Suresh Kumar dashed against the backside of the Lorry,
despite best efforts taken by him to stop the Car. As a result, the deceased
succumbed to injuries and FIR has also been filed as against the driver of the
Lorry. Hence, petitioners have filed the claim petition.
4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners one witness was
examined as P.W.1 and 26 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P.26. On the side
of the respondents, no witness was examined and three documents were marked as
Ex.R1 to R3.
5. Considering the evidence adduced, the trial Court has fixed 35%
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, since he dashed the Lorry,
which was proceeding in front of the Car and 65% was fixed on the driver of the
Lorry.
6. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company has filed this appeal only
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has added 50% towards future prospects instead of 40% and therefore, the order of
the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.1227 of 2022
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 1 to 4 submitted that
after analyzing the entire materials, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the
compensation and therefore, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
9. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the deceased was a bachelor
and while awarding the compensation the Tribunal has added 50% towards future
prospects instead of 40% and therefore, the same is liable to be modified.
Similarly, the Tribunal deducted ¼ of the amount towards personal expenses,
instead of 50% as per the judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla
Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in
2009 (2) TN MAC (1) SC and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with.
The Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier '17', applicable to the age of the
deceased, who was aged about 30 years. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Estate, a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral and Transportation
Expenses, which are reasonable. Therefore, if the monthly income is taken up for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.1227 of 2022
consideration as Rs.21,000/-, 40% of the future prospects added, the total income
comes to Rs.29,400/- and if 50% is deducted, the monthly income would be Rs.
14,700/- and if the multiplier '17' is applied, the total loss of dependency would
come to Rs.29,98,800/- (14,700 x 12 x 17). If a sum of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-
and Rs.15,000/- are awarded towards Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium and
Funeral and Transport Expenses, the total compensation comes to Rs.30,68,800/-.
Out of the said amount, if 35% is deducted towards contributory negligence, the
total amount of compensation would be Rs.19,94,720/-, which is rounded off to
Rs.19,95,000/-
10. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the
petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled to get a sum of Rs.19,95,000/- (Rupees Nineteen
Lakhs and Ninety Five Thousand only) as compensation. Out of the said amount,
the first petitioner being a mother is entitled to a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. The second
petitioner, who is the father of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,95,000/-
and the petitioners 3 and 4, who are the brothers of the deceased are entitled to
each Rs.2,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.1227 of 2022
11. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire modified amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of
filing the claim petition till the date of deposit and costs within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited.
The petitioners may approach the Tribunal for withdrawal of the said amount, for
filing necessary application and if such an application is filed, the Tribunal shall
pass orders for withdrawal, after deducting the Court fees, if any payable by them.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.1227 of 2022
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer of Pudukottai.
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.1227 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
C.M.A.(MD)No.1227 of 2022
10.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
