Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Dhanalakshmi on 12 October, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.302 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.M.A(MD)No.302 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3945 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.10465 of 2023
The Branch Manager,
The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.,
88, Balaji Towers, First Floor,
Thadikombu Road,
Dindigul-641 012. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2
.vs.
1.Dhanalakshmi
2.Krishnaveni
3.Tamilarasi
4.Minor.Jawahar
5.Perumal
6.Anagammal
(The 4th minor petitioner is declared as
major as per the order of this Court
dated 12.10.2023 in
C.M.P(MD)No.10465 of 2023) ...Respondents Nos.1 to 6/
Petitioners
7.G.Ganesh Raveendran ...Respondent No.7/
Respondent No.1
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.302 of 2020
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated
21.11.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.247 of 2017 on the file of the
Principal District Judge of Dindigul insofar as liability to pay
compensation and quantum of compensation is concerned.
For Appellant :Mr.V.Sakthivel
For R1 to R6 :Mr.D.Venkatesh
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.247 of 2017, dated
21.11.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Principal District Judge), Dindigul and to set aside the judgment
and award.
2. The Insurance company is the appellant. The Respondents
1 to 6 are the Claimants 1 to 6. Claimants 1 to 6 filed a claim
petition in M.C.O.P.No.247 of 2017 before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Principal District Court, Dindigul seeking compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Shankar in the road accident on
12.12.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.302 of 2020
3. The case of the claim petitioner before the Tribunal is that
while the deceased Shankar was riding his two-wheeler bearing
Registration No.TN-57-AH-4925, the car bearing Registration
No.TN-38-CA-2954 insured with the appellant / Insurance Company
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the
behind and dashed against the two-wheeler. Due to the impact, the
deceased sustained head injury and subsequently succumbed to the
injuries. Hence, the claimants have filed the claim petition.
4.Resisting the claim petition, the appellant filed a counter
affidavit and has taken the plea that the rider of two-wheeler did
not have any valid driving licence at the time of accident and he has
not wear the helmet as per Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act
and hence, contributory negligence has to be fixed on the rider of
the two-wheeler. With regard to quantum and multiplier there is no
serious dispute.
5.The claimants to substantiate their case examined the first
claimant as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.302 of 2020
6.The Tribunal relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2,
Ex.P1-FIR, came to the conclusion that the driver of the Car was
responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of
Rs.38,16,111/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5%. Challenging
the award, the present appeal has been filed.
7. Heard Mr.V.Sakthivel, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 6/claimants and also perused the records.
8.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
rider of the two-wheeler (deceased) did not have any valid driving
licence at the time of accident and he has not wear the helmet, and
therefore, contributory negligence 25% has to be fixed.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6/ claimants
draw our attention to the evidence of P.W.2, who is the occurrence
witness, had categorically stated that the deceased while driving the
two-wheeler had wear the helmet, due to the impact, it was thrown
out, subsequently, the deceased sustained head injury and the
same was not refuted by adducing any independent witnesses,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.302 of 2020
hence, there is no sustain in the arguments of the
appellant/insurance company.
10. The appellant has filed this appeal only challenging the
quantum and they have not disputed their liability and the manner
of the accident.
11.P.W.1 has deposed that the deceased was working as Cook
in Government Boys Hostel, Murugampatti and he was aged about
49 years old on the date of the accident. P.W.1 has stated that the
deceased was earning Rs.26,153/- per month. Based upon the
salary certificate Ex.P5 issued by the Special Tahsildar, the Tribunal
has fixed Rs.26,153/- as monthly income and after adding 25%
towards future prospects, the monthly income would comes to
Rs.32,691/-. His annual income assessed at Rs.3,92,292/-. Income
Tax Rs.14,229/- was deducted. Hence, annual income is
Rs.3,78,063/-. There are six dependants on the date of accident.
Hence, 1/4th was deducted towards personal expenses of the
deceased i.e., Rs.94,516/-. Thereby, his annual income is assessed
as Rs.2,83,547/-. By adopting multiplier of '13', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.36,86,111/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.302 of 2020
has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.40,000/- for loss
of consortium, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for
transport expenses. Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.38,16,111/-.
12. The another point raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the deceased was not having any valid driving
licence, in this regard, P.W.1 had admitted her cross-examination
that after payment of the fine amount only, vehicle was released.
It is not the case of head on collusion, so long as there is no
negligence on the part of the driver of the two-wheeler. It is clear
that the car hit behind the two-wheeler, we are unable to accept the
contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
Accordingly, the said plea was rejected.
13. On the point of quantum, deduction of income, multiplier
and award of consortium, we find that there is no excessive amount
granted. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair.
Therefore, the award of the tribunal is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.302 of 2020
14.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount with
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
claimants are entitled to withdraw their share amount as
apportioned by the tribunal along with proportionate accrued
interest and cost, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[T.K.R.,J.] [P.B.B.,J.]
12.10.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
am
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-
cum-Principal District Court,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.302 of 2020
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.
am
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.302 of 2020
12.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
