Madras High Court
Muthayammal vs R.Subramanian on 29 March, 2023
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
1.Muthayammal
2.Nagalakshmi
3.Vijayalakshmi ... Appellants
..Vs..
1.R.Subramanian
2.United India Insurance Company Limited.,
Branch Office, 5-B/11 upstairs,
Salem Road,
Rasipuram. ...Respondents
(The 1st respondent set ex parte before the DCL, Salem)
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award amount in W.C.No.59 of 2008
dated 30.04.2010 on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem
along with interest and cost.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Thangaraju
For Respondents : Ms.I.Malar for R2
Ex parte – R1
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants seeking
enhancement of the award amount in W.C.No.59 of 2008 dated 30.04.2010
on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, along with interest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
2. On 03.05.2007 at 11.30 p.m., one Nagarasan, driver of the lorry
bearing Regn.No.KA-01-C-6364 driving on the NH–4 Road, T. Begur, near
Prashali bricks factory, dashed against one lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-04-
9351 on its back side, which due to repair stood on the road. Due to the said
impact, the said Nagarasan sustained injuries all over the body and he died
subsequently in the Hospital where he was rushed for treatment. Thereafter,
the appellants/claimants filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Salem. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, adjudicated
the issues with reference to the documents and evidences. The Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Salem, made a clear finding that the accident
occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle
belonging to the first respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent,
insurer of the vehicle, is made liable to pay a compensation to the
appellants/claimants.
3. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants mainly contended that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem is
inadequate and on the lesser side. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and
therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, ought to have
granted more compensation under various heads. The Deputy Commissioner
of Labour, Salem, without considering the evidence and exhibits, has
granted a meagre compensation of Rs.4,33,060/-. It ought to have fixed the
notional income based on the minimum wages Act and also to award other
reasonable heads to the Dependants. It ought to have awarded interest
within 30 days from the date of accident, as per the rulings of the Apex
Court instead of granting only default interest. It ought to have granted
permission to withdraw the entire deposited amount to the claimants since
Insurance Company has deposited the entire award amount. The reasons
stated by the DCL, refusing to withdraw the amount by the claimants, is
unsustainable.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second
respondent/ Insurance Company disputed the contention by stating that the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, has granted reasonable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
compensation under various heads and no enhancement needs to be granted.
He further submitted that the appellants 2 and 3 are the married sisters of the
deceased driver Nagarasan and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed as
against them. Hence the appeal in toto is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the
learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the entire materials
available on record.
6. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, on the side of
the Appellants/claimants, one witness was examined as PW1 and eight
documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the side of the respondents,
neither witness was examined nor document was marked.
7. A perusal of the award would reveal that Ex.P1 is the Copy of the
First Information Report registered by the police; Ex.P2 is the Death
Certificate; Ex.P3 is the Post mortem certificate; Ex.P4 is the driving
licence; Ex.P5 is the RC book; Ex.P6 is the copy of Insurance policy; Ex.P7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
is the Legal declaration and Ex.P8 is the Legal Heir Certificate. In Ex.P3, it
is stated as follows:
“Death is due to multiple organ injuries causing
damage to the vital organs brain and lungs as a result of
road traffic accident. (Chest injury and head injury)”
8. There was Insurance policy coverage for the said lorry as seen from
the Insurance policy which was marked as Ex.P6 by the second
respondent/Insurance Company before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Salem. In Ex.P6, it is stated that the lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01-C-6364
has been insured in the second respondent/Insurance Company from
30.07.2006 to 29.07.2007 and the said accident occurred on 03.05.2007.
Hence, the insurance policy is in force during the date of accident.
9. As seen from the impugned award, without considering the date of
accident, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, has passed the award
that the Compensation amount of Rs.4,33,060/- shall be deposited by the
second respondent within 30 days of receipt of the order in single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
instalment, in default, it shall carry 12% interest from the date of accident
till the date of deposit. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would
be appropriate to modify that the claimants are entitled to 12% interest from
the 31st day of accident till the date of deposit. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to modify the finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Salem, in respect of interest alone. Except the same, there is no
modification with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem.
10. In the result,
(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed.
(ii) The second respondent/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the Award amount together with interest
at 12% per annum from the 31st day of accident till the date
of deposit to the credit of W.C.No.59 of 2008 within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
(iii) On such deposit being made, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Salem, is directed to transfer the
award amount along with accrued interest to the bank
account of the appellants/claimants through RTGS within a
period of two weeks thereafter. No costs.
29.03.2023
Index:Yes/No
Interest
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order:Yes/No
gv
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Salem.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
gv
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.276 of 2015
29.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
