Madras High Court
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd vs Mr. K. Venkatraman on 23 March, 2023
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.
Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg,
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai – 400 001.
Coimbatore branch at No. 965, Harita Centre,
II Floor, Sony World Building, Avinashi Road,
Lakshmi Mills Post, Coimbatore. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Mr. K. Venkatraman
2. Mr. Madhankumar
3. Ms. Divyadarshini (now major)
4. Mr. P. Senthilkumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.02.2019
made in M.C.O.P. No. 842 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special Sub Court, (MCOP) at Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Ms. C. Bhuvanasundari
For Respondents : Mr. K.M.D. Muhilan
for respondents 1 to 3
fourth respondent- No appearance
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered
by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]
Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, (MCOP) at Coimbatore in M.C.O.P. No.842 of 2015, the
appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that on 16.03.2014, when the deceased
Sumathi was travelling as a passenger in autorickshaw bearing Registration
No. TV 66 B 5637 on the Coimbatore to Pollachi Main Road, from south to
north, the driver of the autorickshaw/first respondent drove the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner and the said vehicle was capsized in the road.
As a result of the accident, Sumathi sustained grievous injuries and
subsequently, succumbed to death.
3. The claimants/respondents 1 to 3, who are the husband, son and
daughter of the deceased Sumathi, have filed the claim petition, claiming a
compensation of a sum of Rs. 52,00,000/- for the death of the deceased
Sumathi along with interest and costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
4. According to the claimants, the deceased Sumathi was running a
catering service and was earning a sum a Rs. 30,000/- per month at the
time of the accident and she was aged about 40 years.
5. The appellant/second-respondent Insurance Company had filed a
counter before the Tribunal denying all the allegations made by the
claimants.
6. The oral and documentary evidence had been adduced on both
sides.
7. The Tribunal, based on the evidence and relevant records, had
come to a conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the fourth
respondent herein, driver of the vehicle. Therefore, fixing the liability on
the appellant insurance company, being the insurer of the vehicle, driven by
fourth respondent, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.40,50,000/- to the
respondents/claimants 1 to 3. Challenging the said compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant insurance company has preferred the
present appeal before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
8. The first contention of the appellant insurance company is that the
Tribunal had erred in considering to award compensation amount for future
prospects. The second contention of the appellant insurance company is
that deduction of personal and living expenses at 1/3 rd of compensation
award amount is contrary to law. The third contention raised in the appeal
is that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head
“Love and Affection” in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, who are the
son and daughter of the deceased Sumathi, is excessive as per the decision
rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu
Ram and others reported in 2018(1) TN MAC 452 (SC). On the
aforesaid grounds, the appeal has been preferred before this Court.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has stoutly
objected for the above grounds raised by the appellant/insurance company
and submitted that the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion and
awarded the compensation to the respondents 1 to 3. According to the
learned counsel for the respondents, there is no necessity warranting
interference with the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and
therefore, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials on record.
11. On going through the entire award passed by the Tribunal, it is
found that the Tribunal, based on evidence, both oral and documentary, had
come to the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the fourth
respondent herein, driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal, fixing the
liability as against the appellant insurance company, being the insurer of the
vehicle, has awarded the compensation amount of Rs.40,50,000/- to the
respondents 1 to 3, under the heads of Loss of dependency, love and
affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate.
12. The Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency as follows:
The Tribunal has relied upon Exs. P5 to P7, income tax assessment returns,
which have been marked on the side of the respondents 1 to 3, for the
years 2010-11, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, and based on the aforesaid
income tax assessment returns, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion
that the annual income of the deceased at the time of accident was
Rs.3,00,000/- per annum, which comes to Rs. 25,000/- per month. Further
as per the decision rendered in the Sarla Verma's case, after adding 40 %
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
towards future prospects, it comes to Rs.35,000/- per month and therefore
the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,20,000/- (35000*12).
Out of the said amount, as per Trilok Chandra's case, as the deceased
was having three dependants, 1/3rd of her annual income was deducted,
which comes to Rs.2,80,000/- (Rs.4,20,000-1,40,000/-). As per Sarla
Verma's case, since the age of the deceased was 40 at the time of
accident, multiplier 15 was adopted. Hence, the loss of dependency comes
to Rs. 42,00,000/- (Rs.2,80,000*15). As per the income slab of the
deceased, 10 % was deducted towards income tax. After deducting the
income tax from the calculated loss of dependency, the actual loss of
dependency comes to Rs. 37,80,000/-.
13. As regards the other heads, the Tribunal has awarded the
compensation amount towards loss of Estate, a sum of Rs. 15000/-,
towards Loss of Consortium a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, towards Funeral
Expenses a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and towards Love and affection a sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/-, to the son and daughter of the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
14. On considering the entire documents marked on the side of the
claimants/respondents 1 to 3 and the finding rendered by the Tribunal while
determining compensation under the aforesaid heads, absolutely we see no
ground warranting interference, except the compensation awarded under
the head of love and affection since the awarded amount being just and fair.
15. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the compensation awarded for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head
of love and affection in favour of the claimants 2 and 3 namely the son and
daughter of the deceased Sumathi is excessive, which requires
consideration of this Court. The contention of the is appellant is that, in the
light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018(1) TN
MAC 452 (SC), claimants 2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-
each but the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Therefore, to
that extent, there is force in the submission made by the learned counsel
for the appellant insurance company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
16. In view of the above, we are in agreement with the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded
under the head love and affection is excessive and therefore we are inclined
to modify the said award by granting Rs. 80,000/-( Rs.40,000/- each) under
the head “ love and affection”.
17. In respect of other heads, the amount awarded by the Tribunal
towards Compensation for loss of dependency Rs.37,80,000/-, towards loss
of Consortium Rs.40,000/-, towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- and
towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- are confirmed by this Court.
18. Thus, the compensation under the various heads awarded by the
Tribunal is modified is as follows:
Sl.No Heads Compensation Compensation
awarded by the modified by
tribunal this Court
Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs.
1 Loss of Dependency 37,80,000/- 37,80,000/-
2 Love and Affection 2,00,000/- 80,000/-
(son and daughter)
Rs. 40,000/- each
3 Loss of Consortium 40,000/- 40,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
Sl.No Heads Compensation Compensation
awarded by the modified by
tribunal this Court
Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs.
for (husband)
4 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-
5 Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/-
Total 40,50,000/- 39,30,000/-
19. In view of the above, the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal is reduced from Rs.40,50,000/- to Rs.39,30,000/-. Thus the award
passed by the Tribunal is modified and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed.
20. The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the entire
compensation amount at the rate of 7.5% interest per annum, to the credit
of M.C.O.P.No. 842 of 2015, from the date of petition till the date of deposit,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, less if any amount already deposited.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
21. On such amount being deposited, the respondents/claimants 1 to
3 are permitted to withdraw the amount as modified by this Court as per
their proportionate share, as apportioned by the Tribunal, along with
interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by
filing necessary applications before the Tribunal.
22. With the above, the Award of the Tribunal is modified.
Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
C.M.P.No. 3954 of 2021 is closed.
(D.K.K., J.) (K.G.T., J.)
23.03.2023
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mrn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, (MCOP),
Coimbatore.
2.V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 648 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI , J.
(mrn)
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.648 of 2021
23.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
