Madras High Court
M/S.The Reliance General ... vs R.Eswari on 12 September, 2023
C.M.A.No.2445 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 12.09.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.M.A.No.2445 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.18618 of 2018
M/s.The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, Sri Lakshmi Complex, First Floor,
Bharathi Street, Omalur Main Road,
Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 004. ...Appellant
Vs.
1. R.Eswari
2. R.Sumathi
3. R.Murugan
4. P.Ayyanar ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 17.07.2017
made in M.C.O.P.No.1488 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Special District Judge, Salem.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2445 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj for RR1 to 3
R4 - No Appearance
*****
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the fair and decreetal order dated
17.07.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.1488 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Special District Judge, Salem.
2 The appellant is the Insurance Company, respondents 1 to 3 are
claimants and 4th respondent is owner of the offending vehicle.
3 The respondents 1 to 3/claimants filed claim petition in
M.C.O.P.No.1488 of 2014 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the
death of Rangasamy, who is husband of the first respondent/1st claimant and
father of the respondents 2 & 3/claimants 2 & 3.
4 The claim petition was contested by the appellant/Insurance
Company and they filed detailed counter denying all the allegations apart from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2445 of 2018
disputing the liability.
5 Before the claims Tribunal, on the side of the respondents 1 to
3/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked besides
X1 to X5. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, R.W.1 to R.W.3
were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked, besides X6.
6 The Tribunal, on an assessment of the entire evidence on record,
fixed the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company and awarded a sum of
Rs.8,87,320/- as compensation along with 7.5% interest and directed the
appellant/Insurance Company to pay the award amount. Not being satisfied
with the compensation ordered by the Tribunal and aggrieved in directing the
appellant/Insurance Company to pay the award amount, the Insurance Company
has filed the present appeal.
7 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
would submit that the Driver of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.2,
who has clearly deposed that his vehicle was not involved in the accident, and
initially FIR has been registered against an unknown vehicle, but, subsequently,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2445 of 2018
the case was registered against the Driver of the offending vehicle, which
clearly proves that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. Further, there is
no whisper about how they traced the vehicle and subsequently added the
Driver of the vehicle as party to the FIR. The learned counsel further submits
that as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the age of the
deceased was 58 years at the time of accident and the correct multiplier would
be 9, but the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier 13, which warrants
interference. Further the deceased was working as Driver during relevant point
of time, but the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- without
even any proof, which is erroneous.
8 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants
would submit that the fourth respondent, who is a Driver and Owner of the
offending vehicle himself admitted that his vehicle involved in the accident.
The Tribunal considered all the oral and documentary evidence and fixed the
liability on the insured vehicle and awarded the compensation, which does not
call for any interference.
9 Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2445 of 2018
materials available on record.
10 From the evidence of eye witnesses, it is clear that the Driver of
the offending vehicle due to his rash and negligent driving caused the accident,
in which the deceased died. Even though initially the vehicle was not able to
trace, but, subsequently, during the investigation, it came to know that the
offending vehicle involved in the accident and hence fixed the liability on the
insurer of the offending vehicle.
11 It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance company that initially the case was registered against
unknown vehicle, but subsequently the case was registered against the fourth
respondent's vehicle, which creates doubt. It is settled proposition of law that
FIR is not an encyclopedia and it is only a tool to set the law into motion. In
this case the subsequent investigation revealed that the offending vehicle was
involved in the accident. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company is not acceptable. There is no perversity in the
findings of the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2445 of 2018
12 Coming to the quantum of compensation, admittedly at the time of
accident, the deceased was 59 years and as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the age group of
56-60, the multiplier would be 9 only, but, the Tribunal wrongly applied the
multiplier as 13. Hence this Court fix the multiplier as 9 and the amount under
the head of Loss of future earning of the deceased is calculated as follows:
Notional income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal is Rs.7500/-
and after deducting 2/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.5000/- has been fixed.
Rs.5000/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.5,40,000/-
There is no reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal towards other heads.
13 In the light of the above discussion, the award of the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
Sl. Various Heads Award of the Award of this
No. Tribunal Court
1. Loss of future prospects of the deceased 7,80,000.00 5,40,000.00
2. Funeral Expenses 25,000.00 25,000.00
3. Loss of consortium for 1st respondent/wife 25,000.00 25000.00
4. Loss of love and affection for the respondents 20,000.00 20,000.00
2 & 3/married daughter and son
5. Medical Expenses as per Ex.P8 37,320.00 37,320.00
TOTAL COMPENSATION 8,87,320.00 6,47,320.00
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2445 of 2018
14 The claimants are therefore entitled to compensation of
Rs.6,47,320/- along with 7.5% interest. The appellant/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation along with 7.5% interest less the amount
already deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants shall be entitled
to withdraw the same as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal by making
proper application before the Tribunal.
15 Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. Connected miscellaneous
petition is also closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12.09.2023
cgi
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral citation: Yes/No
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Special District Judge, Salem.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2445 of 2018
P.VELMURUGAN. J.,
cgi
C.M.A.No.2445 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.18618 of 2018
12.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
