The Divisional Manager vs P.Pattu
2024 Latest Caselaw 15231 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15231 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 August, 2024

Madras High Court

The Divisional Manager vs P.Pattu on 7 August, 2024

                                                                       C.M.A.(MD)No.972 of 2024

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  Dated: 07.08.2024
                                                      CORAM:
                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
                                          C.M.A.(MD)No.972 of 2024
                                                    and
                                         C.M.P(MD) No. 10328 of 2024


                    The Divisional Manager
                    National Insurance Co.Ltd
                    K.R.T. Building, I- Floor,
                    Cantonment, Trichy                           ..Appellant/2nd Respondent

                                                     Vs.

                    1. P.Pattu
                    2.P.Balachandar
                    3.P.Kalyani
                    4.P.Kiribalakshmi
                    5.P.Ramachandran
                    6.P.Raja
                    7.P.Vaishnavi
                    8.M.Kathayee Ammal
                    9.V.Ponnan
                    (Notice to R9 dispensed with)               .Respondents/Petitioners

                    Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
                    the Motor Vehicles Act to set aside the fair and decreetal order
                    dated 01.12.2015 made in MCOP No.201 of 2011 on the file of the
                    Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Sub Court), Kulithalai.


                                  For Appellant      : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
                                  For R1 to R7       : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagarajan




                    1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                       C.M.A.(MD)No.972 of 2024




                                                   JUDGMENT

The appellant/Insurance company has preferred the instant

appeal seeking reduction of compensation to the legal heirs of the

deceased.

2. The respondents had filed the claim petition before the

Tribunal stating that they were the legal heirs of the deceased who

died in a road accident that took place on 28.02.2011.

3. It is the case of the claimants that while the deceased was

riding his two wheeler, the rider of the offending two wheeler came

from behind in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the

two wheeler ridden by the deceased, as a result of which, the

deceased fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries and died

later; and that the deceased was working as a Village Assistant at

the relevant point of time and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per

month.

4. The appellant, who was the second respondent before the

Tribunal, opposed the claim petition stating that the rider of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

insured vehicle did not have valid license, besides stating that the

accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent riding of

the insured.

5. Before the Tribunal on the side of the claimants/petitioners

P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Exs.P.1 to P.6 were

marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were

examined and Exs.R.1 to R3 were marked.

6.After taking into consideration the oral and documentary

evidence, the Tribunal had held that the claimants are totally

entitled to a sum of Rs.11,49,600/- as compensation.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

submit that the Tribunal ought to have adopted split multiplier

method instead of adopting single multiplier method and submitted

that in view of the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

is excessive and prayed for reduction.

8. Hence the only question in the instant appeal is whether the

Tribunal was right in adopting split multiplier method to award

compensation?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9. This Court, on perusal of the award of the Tribunal, finds

that the Tribunal had determined the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.7,800/- after taking into consideration the salary

certificate/Ex.P.6 and Duty register/Ex.P.5. Hence the income fixed

by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. The learned counsel is

unable to point out any infirmity in the same. The compensation

under other heads awarded by the Tribunal in the following

manner:

                                  S.No Description              Amount awarded     by
                                                                the Tribunal
                                   1   Annual Income                  Rs.10,29,600/-
                                       (Rs.7800*12)
                                   2   Loss of     Love   and            Rs.95,000/-
                                       affection

                                   3   Funeral Expenses                  Rs.25,000/-
                                       TOTAL                         Rs.11,49,600/-

is also just and reasonable and therefore cannot be faulted with.

10. The main submission made by the learned counsel is that

since the deceased had only six years of service remaining and was

aged about 52 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal ought to

have adopted split multiplier method. This Court finds that

considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal had adopted

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

multiplier of 11, which is in accordance with the guidelines laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reiterated that

the adoption of two multiplier methods is erroneous in the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of R.Valli and Ors .vs. Tamil