Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs S.N.Mahalakshmi on 15 September, 2023
C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023
THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.21292 of 2203
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Reliance Tower,
No.6, Reliance House, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.S.N.Mahalakshmi
2.S.N.Jeshwanth
3.S.N.Shree Shaa
4.S.N.Shree Shai
5.K.Seshaiya
6.Mahalakshmi
7.S.Sathish Kumar ...Respondents
Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order of Award dated 05.12.2002
passed in MCOP.No.2495 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Court of Small Causes-III), Chennai.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.G.Vasudevan
For Respondents :Mr.S.P.Yuaraj for R1 to R6
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The Insurance Company is on appeal. Challenge is to the quantum
of compensation awarded in MCOP.No.2495 of 2017. The claimants sought
for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one S.Nagarjuna, who
died in a motor accident that occurred on 16.09.2016 when a lorry bearing
registration No.TN-18-AZ-5560 came from behind and hit against the two
wheeler bearing registration No.TN-18-AF-8271, in which, the deceased was
riding.
2.According to the claimants, it was the rash and negligent driving
of the lorry that caused the accident. Contending that the deceased was
working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.700/- per day, the claimants sought
for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023
3.The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending
that the accident did not occurred in the manner suggested by the claimants
and it was the deceased, who contributed to the accident by his own
negligence. The compensation claimed was termed as excessive.
4.At trial, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one
V.Srinivasalu, an eye-witness was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P10 were
marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of the
Insurance Company or the Insurer. The Tribunal, on the basis of the First
Information Report that was filed as Ex.P1 concluded that it was the
negligence on the part of the driver, of the lorry that caused the accident.
5.The Tribunal took the monthly notional income of the deceased at
Rs.12,000/- per month, added 40% towards future prospectus and deducted
1/5 towards personal expenses. By applying a multiplier of 17, the Tribunal
arrived at the total pecunary loss at Rs.27,41,760/-. Considering the number
of dependents, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the
dependents towards loss of consortium. It also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-
each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023
compensation was arrived at Rs.30,11,760/- and the same was rounded off to
Rs.30,11,800/-.
6.Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance
Company would vehemently contend that the quantum of compensation
arrived at by the Tribunal is highly excessive. According to the learned
counsel, once it is admitted that the deceased is a Coolie, the Tribunal ought
not to have taken the notional income at Rs.12,000/- per month. The learned
counsel would also contend that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the
entire negligence is on the part of the lorry driver.
7.As regards the second contention of the learned counsel regarding
negligence, we are unable to entertain the same, since there was total lack of
evidence on the part of the Insurer and the Insurance Company before the
Tribunal. As regards the quantum, we find that the Tribunal has fixed the
income at Rs.12,000/- per month, which is very reasonable.
8.Another factor which impels us to confirm the award of the
Tribunal is the total number of dependents. There are three minor children,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023
who will have to be educated. Even the sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, which has
now been awarded may not be sufficient. Hence, we do not see any reason to
interfere with the award. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is
accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (R.K.M.,J.)
15.09.2023
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index:No
Speaking
Nuetral Citation :No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
R.KALAIMATHI, J.
KKN
To:-
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III-Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.21292 of 2203
15.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
