Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs A.R.Valliappan on 5 August, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.957 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.957 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.10091 of 2024
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
New Hospital Road,
Trichy-12,
through its Branch Manager. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.A.R.Valliappan
2.V.Meenal
W/o.A.R.Valliappan
3.T.Vellamuthu
S/o.Thangavel
4.T.Vellaichamy
S/o.Thangavel ... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to set aside the Award and Decree dated
14.11.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Sub Court],
Devakottai in M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2017.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD) No.957 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.K.Murugesan
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company, against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.11.2011 passed by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Sub Court], Devakottai in
M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2017.
2. The first and second respondents herein had filed a claim petition
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Sub Court], Devakottai in
M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2017, against the third and fourth respondents and the
appellant Insurance Company, stating that the third respondent herein had
driven a lorry bearing Reg. No.TCP 8543 in a rash and negligent manner
and caused death of their minor son.
3. The third and fourth respondents herein who are the driver and
owner of the vehicle had filed counter affidavit denying the averments
made in the claim petition filed by the first and second
respondents/claimants and had stated that the accident did not take place
due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The appellant Insurance Company which was shown as the third
respondent in the claim petition filed their objection stating that the
accident was not due to the negligence of the driver.
5. The first and second respondents/claimants had examined the
second respondent as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A5 before the
Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidences had held that the accident took place due to the negligent
driving of the third respondent herein; that therefore, the appellant being
the insurer of the vehicle was liable to pay compensation and had fixed
the total compensation at Rs.4,69,200/- together with interest at the rate of
6% from the date the claim petition till the date of realization and costs.
7. The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the quantum of the compensation.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company
submitted that they were not aggrieved with the finding of negligence and
their challenge is only with regard to compensation awarded by the
Tribunal; that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal was on the higher
side; that the multiplier method was not in accordance with the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) vs Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121; and that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads was also
excessive.
9. This Court carefully considered the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the Award of
the Tribunal.
10. This Court finds that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.3,60,000/- under the head of “pecuniary loss” by fixing Rs.3,000/- as
notional income of the deceased minor son of the first and second
respondents/claimants. The deceased minor child was 13 years old at the
time of death. In the facts and circumstance of this case, this Court is of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the view that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
11. The compensation under the other heads namely, transportation
charges, funeral expenses, for damages to cloths, and for loss of love and
affection, totaling to Rs.1,09,200/- and the total compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is called for.
Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount together with interest accrued thereon and costs,
after deducting the amount already deposited by it, if any, within a period
of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. The first and second respondents/claimants are permitted to
withdraw the amount together with interest and costs, in the same
proportion ordered by the Tribunal, after deducting the amount already
withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the
Tribunal.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.08.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
JEN
Copy To:
The Sub Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
and
05.08.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
