Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Valli @ Valliyammai on 8 August, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 08.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2009
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.2,2 and 3,3 of 2009
C.M.A.(MD)No.1009 of 2009
The New India Assurance Co Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Juman Centre
Promenade Road
Cantonment, Trichy ..Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1. Valli @ Valliyammai
2. Minor. Karthika
3. Minor.Bavatharini
(Respondents 2 and 3 are represented
by their mother and natural guardian
Valli @ Valliammai/first respondent) ....Respondents/Petitioners
4. B.E.Dhanabalan ..Respondent/1st Respondent
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the decree and judgment
dated01.07.2008 made in MCOP No.336 of 2007 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Session
Court/FTC No.1) Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
For Respondents : No appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2009
C.M.A.(MD)No.1010 of 2009
The New India Assurance Co Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Juman Centre
Promenade Road
Cantonment, Trichy ..Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1. Valli @ Valliyammai ....Respondents/Petitioner
2. B.E.Dhanabalan ..Respondent/1st Respondent
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the decree and judgment
dated 01.07.2008 made in MCOP No.904 of 2007 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Session
Court/FTC No.1) Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
in both cases
For Respondents : No appearance
in both cases
COMMON JUDGMENT
Since the above appeals arise out of the claim petitions in
respect of two deceased persons who died in the same accident,
both the appeals are taken up together.
2. MCOP No. 336 of 2007 was filed by the claimants seeking
compensation for the death of one Selvam who is the husband of
the first claimant and father of claimants 2 and 3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2009
3. MCOP No.904 of 2007 was filed for the death of minor child
one Bawthira, who is the daughter of the aforesaid Selvam. The
mother of the minor child has filed the claim petition.
4. The claimants have filed the claim petition stating that
while they were travelling in a lorry, the driver of the lorry drove the
lorry in a rash and negligent manner and went into the mud road
and capsized the lorry, as a result of which, both the deceased
sustained fatal injuries.
5. The owner of the lorry remained exparte.
6. The appellant-Insurance company filed a counter stating
that the lorry driver had violated the terms and conditions of policy
and had allowed the passengers to travel in the lorry which is meant
for transporting goods and therefore, the appellant is not liable to
pay any compensation.
7. In both cases, the first claimant examined herself as P.W.1
and also examined one Selvaraj as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P.1 and P.2.
The respondents have examined RW1 and marked one document as
Ex.R.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2009
8. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and held that the
driver of the lorry had violated the policy conditions by taking the
deceased in the lorry and therefore, held that the appellant is
entitled to pay compensation amount and recover the same from the
owner of the lorry.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that since the lorry driver had violated the policy condition, direction
to pay and recovery is also not in accordance with law and the
appellant ought to have been completely exonerated from the
liability.
10. Though notice sent to the respondents has been served
there is no representation.
11.This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
12. As regards the compensation in CMA (MD) No.1009 of
2009, the Tribunal had fixed the notional monthly income of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2009
deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3 of his
personal expenses, computed loss of income at Rs.4,32,000/-(Rs.
36,000-12000*18). The said calculation of the Tribunal is just and
reasonable and cannot be found fault with. The Tribunal had
awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection; Rs.
2,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.3000/- towards funeral
expenses, which are also reasonable. Hence, the total compensation
of Rs.4,57,000/- awarded by the tribunal, is confirmed.
13. As regards the claim of the death of the minor child in
CMA 1010 of 2009, the tribunal has fixed the annual income of the
deceased at Rs.10,000/- and thereafter, adopting multiplier of 15,
fixed the compensation under the head loss of income at Rs.
1,50,000/-. The compensation awarded under the said head, is just
and reasonable and cannot be found fault with. The Tribunal had
awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection; Rs.
2,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral
expenses which are also reasonable and hence, the total
compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the tribunal is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2009
14. Thus, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the claimants are entitled to
be paid compensation as stated above.
15. The Tribunal also found that the driver of the lorry had
violated policy condition. Therefore, the Insurance Company is
entitled to pay and recover the compensation amount from the
owner of the lorry. The said owner of the lorry remained exparte
before the Tribunal.
16. This Court finds no infirmity in the said direction of the
Tribunal and therefore, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed on
all aspects. Hence, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation
amount together with accrued interest at 7.5% per annum within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if
not deposited earlier.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2009
17. On such deposit, the claimants in both appeals are entitled
to withdraw the same as apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.08.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
aav
To:
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Additional District and Session Court/FTC No.1) Madurai
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2009
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
aav
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2009
08.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
