Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Panchavarnam on 3 January, 2024
C.M.A.(MD).No.486 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.11.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
C.M.A.(MD)No.486 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6754 of 2021
National Insurance Company Limited,
Through its Divisional Manager,
North Veli Street, Near Sethupathy School,
Madurai. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Panchavarnam
2.Minor P.Guru
3.Minor P.Archana
(Minor R2 and R3 are represented through
their mother and next friend, the first respondent
Panchavarnam)
4.Karthigai Karuppayee
5.A.Angaiyarkanni ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015 dated 26.09.2019 on the file of the Motor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.486 of 2020
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with Motor
Accidents Claims Cases, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.A.Anbalakan
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed as against the
award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Madurai in
M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015 dated 26.03.2019 by the appellant insurance
company challenging the liability fixed on the insurance company.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed herein as
per the rank in M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015.
3.The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is as follows:-
On 15.03.2015 at about 12.15 hours in Madurai Pandikoil Ring
Road at Masthanpatti, near E.B. Post on the southern side of Sekar Saw
Mill, while the deceased G.Pilavadi Karuppu was driving his own auto
bearing Registration No.TN-64-C-3719 on the left side of the road in a
moderate speed from south to north with one passenger towards Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pandi Koil, the first respondent's Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing
Registration No.TN-01-P-8799 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner came from the opposite direction without observing the
traffic rules and dashed against the deceased. As the result of the
collision, the auto was thrown away and capsized. The driver owner of
the auto Pilavadi Karuppu sustained several injuries died on the way to
the Government hospital due to the head injuries. The deceased was 29
years old at the time of accident and he was self employed and was
earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to his sudden demise, the
petitioners/claimants who are the wife, two minor children and mother of
the deceased have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.224 of 2015.
4.The first respondent's lorry was insured with the second
respondent and the first respondent has filed a counter and refuted the
claim made by the petitioners and claimed that the accident had happened
only due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by the deceased in the
wrong side and that the first respondent driver did not dash against the
deceased. The second respondent had also filed a counter in similar lines.
That apart the second respondent claimed that the vehicle bearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
registration No.TN-01-P-8799 alleged to have been involved in the
accident was insured with National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, Rajapalayam under the policy No.
640700/31/14/6300002101 for a period of 28.02.2015 to 27.02.2016. It
was further contended that the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-
P-8799 was not at all involved in the accident and only to get unlawful
gain, the same has been falsely implicated.
5.The learned Tribunal had framed three issues. Two witnesses
P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined on the side of the petitioners and Ex.P1
to Ex.P12 were marked and on the side of the respondents, five witnesses
R.W.1 to R.W.5 were examined and eight documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8
were marked and one document was marked. The learned Tribunal after
scrutinizing the evidence adduced and various oral and documentary
evidence produced and considering the arguments putforth, the Tribunal
came to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the
negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-
P-8799. The learned Tribunal had taken note of the evidence adduced by
R.W.1, R.W.2, R.W.3 and R.W.5 and the same are extracted as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“On the side of the first respondent RW1 one
Arujunan was examined and he deposed that
1k; vjpu;kDjhuu; Xl;Leu; kPJ Fw;w tof;F
epYitapy; cs;s tpguk; vdf;F njupAk;. tpgj;J
rk;ge;jkhf ehq;fs; mspj;j Gfhu; rk;ge;jkhd
Mtzj;ij jhf;fy; nra;atpy;iy. CBCID
NghyPrhUf;F mspj;j Gfhu; Njjp Qhgfkpy;iy. me;j
Gfhu; vd;d epyikapy; cs;sJ vd;Wk; vdf;F
njupahJ.
On the side of first respondent, R.W.2 one Pandian,
Head Constable, (Transport Investigation Wing - II),
Thallakulam, was examined and he deposed that
vq;fs; fhty; epiya Fw;w vz; 122/2015y;
tof;F kJiu ePjpj;Jiw eLtu; vz;.6y;
Mz;Lg;gl;bay; tof;F 136/2015 Mf Nfhg;gpw;F
vLf;fg;gl;L tprhuizapy; ,Ue;J tUfpwJ.
On the side of the second respondent, R.W.3 Prem
Annand, Inspector of Police (Special Branch), Sivagangai
was examined and he deposed that
tpgj;J ele;j rhiy Gwtopr;rhiy vd;why; rup
jhd;. tpgj;J ele;j gFjpapy; ehd;F Rq;fr;rhtbfs;
mike;Js;sd vd;why; rupjhd;. tpgj;jpw;fhd Gfhiu
mspj;jtu; Nkw;gb Ml;Nlhtpy; gazpj;jtu; vd;why; rup.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
On the side of the second respondent, R.W.5
Nagarajan was examined and he deposed that
tpgj;jpw;fhd Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if vd; kPJ
jhd; gjpT nra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rup jhd;. NkYk;
Fw;wg;gj;jpupf;ifAk; vd; kPJ jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L
tof;F epYitapy; cs;sJ vd;why; rup jhd;. tpgj;J
rk;ge;jkhf vdJ Xl;Leu; cupikj;ij 6 khj fhyk;
Klf;fp itj;jpUe;jdu;. vd; kPJ gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;s
Fw;w tof;F jtW vd;W Ml;Nrgpj;J ehd; tof;F
eltbf;if vJTk; Nkw;nfhs;stpy;iy.
6.After carefully evaluating the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and
R.W.1 to R.W.5 and going through Ex.P1 FIR, Ex.P4 Motor Vehicle
Report of lorry and Ex.P6 Charge sheet, the learned Tribunal fastened the
negligence on the driver of the lorry. Though the petitioners claim that
the deceased earned Rs.15,000/- per month, in the absence of evidence,
the learned Tribunal relying upon the case in 2018 2 TNMAC 302 (DB)
fixed the deceased monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- and his
age was also determined as 31 years, for which future prospects of 40%
was also added. Notional income of the deceased would be Rs.9,100/-
(Rs.6,500x40%=Rs.2,600/-+Rs.6,500/-). After deducting 1/4rd towards
personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
worked out as Rs.6,825/- (Rs.9,100-Rs.2,225/-) per month and multiplier
of '16' was applied. Hence, total compensation amount is Rs.13,10,400/-
(Rs.6,825x12x16). The learned Tribunal passed the award under the
following heads:-
Head Compensation awarded
(I)Loss of dependency: Rs.13,10,400/-
(ii)Loss of spousal consortium : Rs.40,000/-
(iii)Loss of filial consortium: Rs.40,000/-
(iv)Funeral Expenses: Rs.15,000/-
(v)Transportation Expenses: Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation awarded: Rs.14,20,400/- with interest @
7.5 % from the date of the claim
until the realization and costs.
7.It was further held by the learned Tribunal that both the
respondents are jointly and severely liable and ordered to deposit the
award amount with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the petition
till the date of deposit. Challenging the liability fastened on the second
respondent, the second respondent insurance company has filed this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.J.S.Murali
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
categorically submitted that lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-P-8799
was not at all involved and the complaint was registered by the insurance
company before the CBCID and sought for passing an order of pay and
recover instead of jointly and severely fastening the liability on the
respondents 1 and 2.
9.However a critical perusal of the materials in record would
reveal that the learned Tribunal had meticulously weighed the various
evidences on the side of the petitioners and the respondents and has
concluded that the respondents 1 and 2 were jointly and severely liable
for the payment of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
10.In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere with the
award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.01.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Additional District Judge), Pudukkottai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
