Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Jothi on 6 August, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
C.M.A.(MD)No.1156 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1156 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.11103 of 2021
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Through its Branch Manager,
Office at Varadarajapuram,
Cumbum ... Appellant / 3rd Respondent
-Vs-
1.Jothi
2.Arjunan
3.Amirtha Janani ... Respondents 1 to 3 / Petitioners
4.Manikandan
5.Malayalam ... Respondents 4 & 5 /Respondents 1 &2
(Minor 3rd respondent is declared as major vide order dated 06.08.2024)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree
dated 30.03.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.134 of 2018 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Cum I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
For R1 to R3 : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar
For R4 & R5 : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
C.M.A.(MD)No.1156 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
The Insurance Company is on appeal. The challenge is to the award,
granting a sum of Rs.55,48,676/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Forty Eight
Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Six Only) to the respondents 1 to 3 /
petitioners.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal.
3.According to the claimants, on 13.11.2017, when the deceased was
walking on the mud portion in Sekkilar 2nd Street near Kalidass Petty Shop
towards north at Madurai Town P.P.Kulam, a tractor bearing Registration
No.TN 41 7070 belonging to the 1st respondent attached with trailer bearing
Registration No.TN 60 F 0497 belonging to the 2nd respondent, which were
insured with the 3rd respondent, came from just behind of the deceased without
sounding horn, in a high speed and knocked down the deceased. As a result of
the impact, the deceased sustained serious injuries and immediately, he was
taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and after first-aid, he was
taken to Sri Meenakshi Mission Hospital at Madurai, where best and effective
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
treatment was given to the deceased. However, he succumbed to his injuries in
the hospital on 15.11.2017.
4.Therefore, a case was registered against the 1st respondent's driver
for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 IPC @ 279, 304(A) IPC on
the file of the Madurai Traffic Investigation Wing II Police Station, in Crime
No.315 of 2017. Since the deceased was working as Head Constable in Central
Reserve Police Force at Chennai and drawing monthly salary of Rs.75,830/-
and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was incurred towards medicines and medical
charges for the treatment given to the deceased, the claimants filed the petition,
claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum.
5.The said claim was resisted by the Insurance Company, contending
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, inasmuch as
the deceased crossed the road abruptly without caring the vehicle coming on
the road. Further, the driver of the 1st respondent did not have any valid,
effective and legal driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. The
quantum of compensation claimed was also termed as excessive.
6.At trial, on the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined
as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked. On the side of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Insurance Company, five witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.5 and no
documents were marked. However, on the side of the witnesses, 12 documents
were marked as Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.12.
7.The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence on record,
concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the
1st respondent and both the tractor and trailer since were involved in the
accident, which were insured with the 3rd respondent, the Insurance Company is
liable to pay compensation and ultimately, awarded a sum of Rs.55,48,676/- as
compensation.
8.Challenging the same, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
9.Though the appellant has taken a defence that the deceased also
contributed negligence, since there is no pleading and evidence for that
defence, the learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing the said defence.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
offending vehicle was the tractor, which was used only for agricultural purpose,
not for other purpose. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the tractor was
engaged for non-agricultural purpose. Therefore, since it is the violation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
policy conditions, the Tribunal, having considered the same, ordered pay and
recovery, for which, the appellant may not have any grievance.
11.As far as the quantum is concerned, the learned counsel for the
appellant would submit that since the deceased was working as Head
Constable, he comes under the direct payment of tax. Therefore, the Insurance
Company before paying amount has to deduct income tax, if the amount is
taxable income.
12.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that
the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the tractor and a case was also registered against only the tractor and there is no
complaint made against the deceased, who is the pedestrian. Further, P.W.2 was
the informant to the Police for registering the First Information Report and
based on his information only, the case was registered and there is no contra
evidence to that effect. Further, the appellant has also not denied the liability
and the deceased was working as Head Constable, for which, salary certificate
was also produced. The Tribunal, having considered all these facts and
circumstances, applied its mind and awarded compensation, which is just and
proper. Therefore, no interference is called for.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13.Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials
available on record carefully.
14.Admittedly, the deceased was working as Head Constable, at the
time of accident and the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the tractor and there is no contra evidence. Therefore,
the learned counsel for the appellant also conceded with the fact regarding the
liability. Further, at the time of accident, since the tractor was engaged only for
non-agricultural purpose and it is the violation of the conditions of the policy,
the Tribunal ordered for pay and recovery.
15.As far as the quantum is concerned, at the time of accident, the
deceased was working as Head Constable and drawing monthly salary of
Rs.40,005/-. Therefore, considering his age, the Tribunal, applying multiplier
of 13, awarded following amounts under various heads:-
SL.No. Heads Calculation
1 Loss of Income Rs.54,08,676/-
2 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
3 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
4 Transport Expenses Rs.5,000/-
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.55,48,676/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16.It is borne out from the compensation given by the Tribunal that
the compensation under loss of love and affection and loss of consortium have
been combinedly given to the claimants. Hence, the same is divided under two
heads. Accordingly, the second and third claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-
each towards loss of love and affection and the first claimant is entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The compensation awarded under other
heads shall remain unchanged.
17.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire
compensation amount of Rs.55,48,676/- along with accrued interest at the rate
of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization, less the amount, if
any already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are directed to withdraw
the same without filing any formal application. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.V.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]
06.08.2024
(2/2)
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Yuva
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The I Additional District Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Yuva
JUDGMENT MADE IN
06.08.2024
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
