Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Kanagavalli on 28 November, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.400 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.M.A(MD)No.400 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5084 of 2018
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
through its Branch Manager,
Theni, Office at Sri Vijay Complex II Floor,
Theni-625 531. :Appellant/2nd Respondent
.vs.
1.Kanagavalli
W/o.Late Makash Kannan @ Venkatasamy
through her Maternal Uncle and
next friend Soundararajan,
S/o.Chinnasami Naicker ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.K.Sumathi ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
3.Srinivasakaperumal Naicker ...3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent
4.Kannammal ...4th respondent/4th respondent
5.United India Insurance Company Limited,
through its Branch Manager,
Sivakasi, Office at P.B.No.110, Javan Bhavan
Opposite to Head Post Office,
Sivakasi
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.400 of 2018
(2nd Respondent remained
ex-parte before the lower Court) ...5th respondent / 5th respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Decree and judgment made in
M.C.O.P.No.996/2012 dated 09.03.2018 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- IV Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
For Appellant :Mr.K.Balasubramanian
For R1 :Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh
For R5 :M/s.Royce Immanuvel
For R2 : Ex-parte
For R3 & R4 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
*********
[Judgment of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.]
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed againt the judgement
and award made in M.C.O.P.No.996 of 2012, dated 09.03.2018, on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum- IV Additional District
Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Insurance Company is the appellant herein has filed the
present appeal challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.996 of 2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on the ground of negligence as well as the quantum of compensation.
The claim petitioner Kanagavalli, who is the wife of the deceased
Maheshkannan alias Venkatasami, has filed M.C.O.P.No.996 of 2012 for
the death of her husband and has filed M.C.O.P.No.993 of 2012 for the
injuries sustained by him in the very same accident.
3. The common evidence has been let in and joint trial was
conducted and common judgment was pronounced. As against the award
passed in M.C.O.P.No.993 of 2012, the Insurance Company has not filed
any appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 5 and perused the
materials available on record.
5. The claim petitioner filed the above M.C.O.P.No.996 of 2012
claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- for the death of her husband
Maheshkannan alias Venkatasami in the road transport accident on
07.12.2011 while they are riding the motorcycle bearing registration
No.TN-69-AX-3079. The said Maheshkannan alias Venkatasami was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
riding the two wheeler and the claim petitioner Kanagavalli was pillion
rider. It is a specific case of the claim petitioner both in Ex.P1 as well as
in the evidence that the Tractor was driven by the driver in a rash and
negligent manner and due to burst in tire, the driver of the tractor,
without any signal, suddenly stopped the tractor in the middle of the
road, as a result, the two-wheeler which was following the tractor dashed
behind the tractor, in which, Maheshkannan alias Venkatasami, who is
the husband of the claim petitioner, sustained injury and subsequently
died.
6. The Insurance Company of the tractor has filed the counter.
Insurance Company of the two-wheeler also has filed counter affidavit.
7. During trial, on behalf of the claim petitioner P.Ws.1 to 3 were
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 were marked. On the side of the
respondent, the Investigating Officer, who had investigated the matter,
was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. Based upon
the occurrence witness P.W.3, the trial Court has come to the conclusion
that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the Tractor. Further, it is also the specific evidence of P.W.3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the Tractor was connected with the trailor and at the time of the
accident, both the tractor and trailor connected together and due to
sudden application of brake by the driver, the accident had taken place.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the owner of the tractor and insurance
company of the tractor are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation and accordingly, calculated the compensation at
Rs.18,61,936/-. Challenging the quantum of compensation and liability,
the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
8. It remains to be stated that as against the award passed in
M.C.O.P.No.993 of 2012, wherein, a specific finding has been given by
the Tribunal that the accident has taken place due to the rash and
negligent driving by driver of the tractor. On a independnt reading of the
evidence of P.W.3 coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.P1,
Ex.R2, Ex.R3 and Ex.R4, we find that the findings rendered by the
Tribunal is well considered one and there is no irregularity or illegality
warranting interference in the findings of the tribunal and hence, the
appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as per
Ex.R5 Insurance Policy and the same is in force on the date of accident.
On the point of quantum of compensation, we find that as per age of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deceased, education qualification the tribunal has rightly applied the
multiplier of '16''as per the judgment in 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC) (Smt.
Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation and another)
and 40% future prospects is also fixed as per the judgment in 2017(2)
TNMAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi]. The
Tribunal has rightly fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.
10,000/- and deducted 1/3rd since there are three dependents and awarded
a sum of Rs.18,61,936/-. We are of the considered view that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation and
does not require any interference.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and
the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
– cum- IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.996 of
2012, dated 09.03.2018 is confirmed. The appellant Insurance company
is directed to deposit the award amount with proportionate accrued
interest and costs, less the award amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On such deposit being made, the first respondent/claimant and the
respondents 3 &4 are entitled to withdraw their award amount along
with proportionate accrued interest and cost as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the apportionment made by the tribunal, less the amount already
withdrawn, if any, by filing necessary application before the tribunal. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.K.R.,J.] [P.B.B.,J.]
28.11.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
am
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum-
IV Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.
am
JUDGMENT MADE IN
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
