Madras High Court
Shriram General Insurance Company ... vs Valli on 5 August, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
& Cros. Obj(MD)No.20 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
& Cros. Obj(MD)No.20 of 2022 &
C.M.P(MD)Nos.10944 & 10947 of 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.1136 of 2021
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,
Office at SRC Complex,
2nd Floor, Sripuram,
S.N. High Road,
Tirunelveli - 627 001.
Through its Branch Manager ...Appellant
vs.
1.Valli
2.Minor Madavasuthakar
3.Minor Ajaytharun
(Minors 2 and 3 are represented through
their mother and next guardian, first respondent)
4.Rajeshkumar ... Respondents
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
& Cros. Obj(MD)No.20 of 2022
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge,
Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.359 of 2015 dated 06.07.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondents : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar for R1 to R3
No appearance for R4
C.M.A.(MD)No.1137 of 2021
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,
Office at SRC Complex,
2nd Floor, Sripuram,
S.N. High Road,
Tirunelveli - 627 001.
Through its Branch Manager ...Appellant
vs.
1.Vijay @ Manikandavijay
2.Rajeshkumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge,
Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2015 dated 06.07.2020.
Page 2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
& Cros. Obj(MD)No.20 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondents : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar for R1
No appearance for R2
Cros. Obj(MD)No.20 of 2022
in C.M.A.(MD)No.1137 of 2021
Vijay @ Manikandavijay ...Cross Objector
vs.
1.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,
Office at SRC Complex,
2nd Floor, Sripuram,
S.N. High Road,
Tirunelveli - 627 001.
Through its Branch Manager
2.Rajeshkumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Cross Objection filed in C.M.A.(MD)No.1137 of 2021 under
Order 41 Rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment
and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special
Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2015 dated
06.07.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sasikumar
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman
No appearance for R2
Page 3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
& Cros. Obj(MD)No.20 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
The appellant, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, filed
the appeals questioning the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.Nos.359 of
2015 and 769 of 2015. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2015 has
filed the cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. On 18.01.2015, at about 01.30 hours, the deceased
Esakkimuthu, Vijay @ Manikandavijay and some others were travelling
in a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 72 P 9057 on Tirunelveli -
Alangulam main road. When the vehicle was nearing
Keelakarumpuliyoothu Seyyadhu Cotton Mill, the driver of the vehicle
drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed against a tree, due to
which, Esakkimuthu and VijaY @ Manikandavijay sustained grievous
injuries. They were immediately rushed to the Tirunelveli Government
Hospital. However, Esakkimuthu succumbed to injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
3. The legal heirs of the deceased Esakkimuthu have filed
M.C.O.P.No.359 of 2015 and the injured Vijay @ Manikandan has filed
M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2015 seeking compensation. According to the
claimants in both the petitions, the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the vehicle was responsible for the accident and hence the
owner and insurer of the vehicle are both jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation.
4. The learned Tribunal after analysing the oral and documentary
evidence on both sides, awarded a compensation of Rs.33,36,432/- to the
claimants in M.C.O.P.No.359 of 2015, challenging which, the Insurance
company is before this Court by way of appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.1136
of 2021 and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,33,974/- to the claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2015, challenging which, the Insurance Company has
filed C.M.A.(MD)No.1137 of 2021. Seeking enhancement of
compensation, the injured claimant in M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2015 has filed
Cross Objection in Cros. Obj. (MD)No.20 of 2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance
Company would submit that six persons were travelling in the vehicle
bearing Registration No.TN 72 P 9057 and the vehicle was over loaded
at the time of the accident due to which the driver could not control the
vehicle and invited the accident. He would submit that the driver of the
vehicle did not have any valid driving licence along with the badge
endorsement.
6.1. As far as the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.359 of
2015 is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company would submit that the fixation of income of the deceased at Rs.
17,371/- per month in the absence of any substantial oral or documentary
evidence is on the higher side and that the total award of Rs.33,36,432/-
passed by the Tribunal is also on the higher side
6.2. With regard to the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.769
of 2015 is concerned, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company
would submit that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.5,000/- for each
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
percentage of disability and the same is on the higher side. He would
submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads
of extra nourishment, loss of convenience and transportation is also on
the higher side.
6.3. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company would submit that the award passed by the Tribunal in both the
claim petitions ought to be reduced to a greater extent.
7.1. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit
that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of
the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 72 P 9057, who
drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit against a tree. He
would submit that the accident is not in dispute and hence, the insurer of
the vehicle, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
7.2. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded in
M.C.O.P.No.359 of 2015, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
would submit that the deceased was aged only 31 years at the time of the
accident and the Tribunal after analysing the oral and documentary
evidence on record, fixed Rs.17,371/- as monthly income and awarded
just and fair compensation and the same need not be disturbed.
7.3. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded in
M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2015 is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for
the claimant would submit that the claimant has lost his right eye sight
completely due to the accident and he was aged only 32 years at the time
of the accident and hence, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a huge
compensation under the head of marriage prospects. However, the
Tribunal failed to do so. The claimant has also filed a Cross Objection in
this regard and therefore, he would submit that the award passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be enhanced.
8. Though the appellant Insurance Company dispute the liability,
no oral or documentary evidence was adduced to prove their
contention. The claimants have examined the eye witness to the accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
and proved that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN
72 P 9057. The appellant Insurance Company has not denied the Policy
coverage and even in case of over load, claim was made only for
permissible number of occupants of the vehicle. Hence, the over load
stand taken by the Insurance Company is not acceptable. The Tribunal
after analysing the oral and documentary evidence available on record,
has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. In the absence of
any contra evidence, this Court as an appellate Court and as a final Court
of fact finding, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, comes to the
conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and that at the time of the
accident, the Policy was in force and hence, the appellant Insurance
Company is liable to pay compensation.
9. C.M.A.(MD)No.1136 of 2021: As far as quantum of
compensation is concerned, admittedly the deceased was working as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
Track Man at Southern Railways, earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per
month and his Salary Certificate was marked as Ex.P10. Based on the
Salary Certificate that Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased
as Rs.17,371/-. The deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of the
accident. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the age and number of
dependents, adopted multiplier method and deducted 1/3rd towards the
personal expenses of the deceased and also added 50% towards future
prospects of the deceased. This Court also after re-appreciating the
evidence on record and considering the avocation and age of the
deceased is of the opinion that the Tribunal has awarded just and fair
compensation. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal in C.M.A.
(MD)No.1136 of 2021 and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. C.M.A.(MD)No.1137 of 2021: Admittedly, the injured
claimant was 32 years at the time of the accident and he is not a married
person. Due to the accident, the injured claimant has lost his right eye
sight. He has been admitted as inpatient in various Hospitals and in
support of his claim, medical bills were also produced. These facts were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
not disputed by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal after discussing
the evidence of PW6 Doctor and after analysing the oral and
documentary evidence, has awarded a just compensation. Considering
the fact that the claimant was aged only 32 years at the time of the
accident and that he has lost his right eye sight, this Court does not find
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and
hence, there is no merit in the appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.1137 of 2021
and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Cross Objection(MD)No.20 of 2022: The claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2015 has filed this cross objection on the ground that
the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the captions loss
of reputation and marriage prospects. A reading of the disability
certificate issued by the Board and also the evidence of PW5 and PW6
clearly shows that due to the accident the cross objector / claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2015 has sustained grievous injuries, lost his right
eye sight completely and that he has undergone various surgeries and
treatments. Obviously, losing an eye sight would affect the marriage
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
prospect of the cross objector. Even for a man with small disability, it is
difficult to get married at the age of 32 years. In the instant case, the
cross objector has lost his one side eye sight and hence, it is very difficult
to get married. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the above facts.
This Court after considering all those facts, finds that it is appropriate to
award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of marriage prospects.
Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.769 of
2015 is enhanced by Rs.3,00,000/-.
12. In the result,
(i) The C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021 are both dismissed.
The Judgment and Decree dated 06.07.2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.359
of 2015 is upheld.
(ii) The Cross Objection in Cros.Obj.(MD)No.20 of 2022 is partly
allowed and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in
M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2015 is enhanced from Rs.5,33,974/- to 8,33,974/-.
The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount (less the amount already deposited by them)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
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 M.C.O.P.No.769 of
2015 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. On such deposit being made, the claimant is at liberty to
withdraw the same after following due procedure.
(iii) No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
(P.V., J.) (K.K.R.K., J.)
05.08.2024
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mbi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli
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)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
mbi
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2021
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
