Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Kalyanasundaram on 6 October, 2023
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.10.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022 &
C.M.P.(MD)No.12918 of 2023
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
15-A, PLA Kanagu Towers,
Thillainagar, 11th Cross, Trichy - 18. ...Appellant
vs.
1.Kalyanasundaram
2.Shanthi
3.Sivaranjani
4.Maruthakasi ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set
aside the Judgement and Decree dated 29.03.2022 in M.C.O.P.No.44 of
2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate
Judge, Thuraiyur.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondents : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj for R1 to R3
No appearance for R4
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
JUDGEMENT
[Judgement of the Court was delivered by RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.]
This Appeal is filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.44 of
2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge,
Thuraiyur, questioning the liability and the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The brief case of the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants is as follows:
(i) The 1st respondent / 1st claimant is the father of the deceased, 2nd
respondent / 2nd claimant is the mother of the deceased and the 3rd
respondent / 3rd claimant is the unmarried sister of the deceased.
(ii) The deceased was aged about 19 years on the date of the accident.
He was studying III year B.E (Mechanical Engineering) and was earning a
sum of Rs.20,000/- per month by taking tuition classes for 9th to 12th
standard students.
(iii) On 26.08.2018, the deceased Sriram was riding his two wheeler
bearing Registration No.TN 48 AH 8262 along with his friend one
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
Venkatesh as pillion rider on Chennai - Trichy bypass road. A Government
bus was proceeding ahead of the two wheeler. When they were proceeding
near Kondayampettai four road, the driver of the Government bus applied
sudden brake. The deceased Sriram also applied brake and stopped his two
wheeler. At that time, the fourth respondent / first respondent's lorry
bearing Registration No.TN 61 C 5321 which was proceeding in the same
direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came
behind the two wheeler with hectic and uncontrollable speed and dashed
against the two wheeler, due to which, Sriram fell down and in
consequence to the same, the tyre of the lorry ran over his head. Due to this
accident, Sriram sustained fatal injuries all over his body, particularly,
severe crush injury in his head and died on the spot.
(iv) According to the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants, the accident
occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said
lorry. The fourth respondent herein is the owner of the lorry and the
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, who is the present appellant
is the insurer of the lorry. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the said lorry
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
3. The fourth respondent / owner of the lorry was absent before the
Tribunal and therefore, he was set ex-parte. The Reliance General
Insurance Company Limited contested the claim petition.
4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the respondents 1 to 3 /
claimants, PW1 & PW2 were examined and exhibits P1 to P14 were
marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no documentary or oral
evidence was marked.
5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the fourth respondent / first
respondent's lorry insured with the appellant / second respondent and
awarded a sum of Rs.30,74,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum and directed the Insurance Company to pay the same. Aggrieved
over the award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has
preferred this appeal.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
7. On going through the oral evidence of PW2 coupled with the
documentary evidence of Ex.P1 FIR and Ex.P3 Charge Sheet, it is seen that
the two wheeler ridden by the deceased was preceded by the Transport
Corporation bus and followed by a lorry. The driver of the said bus
suddenly applied brake, thereby, the deceased Sriram has also applied
brake. However, the driver of the lorry who drove the vehicle rashly and
negligently, failed to apply brake, as a result, the lorry dashed against the
two wheeler, thereby, the deceased Sriram fell down and the tyre of the
lorry ran over the head of the deceased. Therefore, appropriate oral and
documentary evidences are available to prove the rash and negligence
driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. The lorry was insured with the
appellant / second respondent. In view of the above, the liability fixed by
the Tribunal on the part of the appellant / second respondent is just and fair
and the same does not require any interference in this appeal.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
8. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal
considering the facts that the deceased was studying III year B.E.
(Mechanical Engineering) and taking tuition for 9th to 12th standards, fixed
the notional income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-. The respondents 1 to 3 /
claimants have filed Ex.P12 IV Semester Mark Sheet of the deceased,
wherein, it is seen that the deceased completed the IV Semester with I class
distinction. No evidence has been adduced by the respondents 1 to 3 /
claimants to prove that the deceased was taking tuition to 9th to 12th
standard students. Considering the above, we feel that the notional income
fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- is slightly on the higher side and hence
the same is refixed at Rs.18,000/-. The deceased was a bachelor and
therefore, the Tribunal deducted 50% of his income towards his personal
expenses. The multiplier of 18 fixed by the Tribunal following the decision
in Sarlavarma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 is hereby confirmed. Further, the Tribunal
had added 40% towards the future prospects of the deceased as per the
decision laid down in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others
reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601, and the same is also hereby confirmed.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
Calculation:
Notional income = Rs.18,000/-
40% Future Prospects = Rs.7,200/-
Total = Rs.18,000/- + Rs.7,200 = Rs.25,200/-
Loss of Income = Rs. 25,200/- x 12 x 18 x 50/100 = Rs.27,21,600/-
9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral
expenses and transportation are just and fair and the same are hereby
confirmed. However, this Court feels that the compensation awarded
towards loss of love and affection is on the lower side and is inclined to
enhance the same. There are three dependents to the deceased. Each of the
dependent is awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection and
therefore, in total Rs.40,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded towards love
and affection.
10. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.44
of 2019 is modified as follows:
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
Sl. Particulars Amount granted Amount granted
No. by the Tribunal by this Court
1. Loss of Income Rs.30,24,000/- Rs.27,21,600/-
Loss of love and Rs.20,000/- Rs.1,20,000/-
affection
3. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
4. Transportation Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.30,74,000/- Rs.28,71,600/-
11. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced
from Rs.30,74,000/- to Rs.28,71,600/- which shall carry interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum.
(iii) The appellant / second respondent is directed to deposit the entire
compensation amount awarded by this Court, i.e., Rs.28,71,600/- (if not
already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of MCOP.No.
44 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate
Judge, Thuraiyur within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
(iv) On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants
are permitted to withdraw the same, as per the apportionment made by the
Tribunal in the manner known to law.
(v) If the appellant / second respondent had already deposited the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the credit of the said MCOP, then,
they are at liberty to withdraw the balance amount which is in excess of the
amount awarded by this Court after following due process of law.
(T.K.R., J.) (P.B.B., J.)
06.10.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mbi
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Subordinate Judge,
Thuraiyur.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
and
P.B.BALAJI, J.
mbi
C.M.A.(MD)No.939 of 2022
06.10.2023
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
