Madras High Court
M/S.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Mariammal on 4 June, 2024
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
CMA.(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated:04/06/2024
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
CMA(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
and
CMP(MD)Nos.6290 and 6291 of 2021
(1)CMA(MD)No.667 of 2021:-
M/s.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
1st Floor, DDJ Centre,
Vadaseri Bus Stand Opposite,
through Branch Manager,
Nagercoil-629 001. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Mariammal
2.Venkat Selvakumar
3.Shankar
4.Karthick
5.Minor Selvasubramanian
(Minor 5th Respondent through
his guardian and mother 1
1st respondent)
6.Sankarammal : Respondents 1 to 6/
Petitioners 1 to 5
7.Sebinraj : Respondent No.7/
Respondent No.1
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under
section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside
the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli made in MCOP No.1835 of
2018, dated 22/02/2021.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Revindaran
For R1 to R6 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For 7th Respondent : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
CMA.(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
(2)CMA(MD)No.668 of 2021:-
M/s.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
1st Floor, DDJ Centre,
Vadaseri Bus Stand Opposite,
through Branch Manager,
Nagercoil-629 001. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Kaliammal : 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.Sebinraj : 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under
section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside
the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli, made in MCOP No.1866 of
2018, dated 22/02/2021.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Revindaran
For 1st Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed seeking
an order to set aside the common order passed by the the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sub Court,
Tirunelveli made in MCOP Nos.1835 and 1866 of 2018, dated
22/02/2021.
2.The facts in brief:-
On 23/05/2018 at about 09.00 am, the deceased
Shanmugavel was riding a two wheeler bearing registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
No.TN-72-B-6501. At that time, in the opposite direction
the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-69-S-1958 was
driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the deceased. He sustained injuries, taken
to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. But without
responding to the treatment, he died on 01/06/2018.
3.A case was registered in Crime No.85 of 2018 for
the offences under sections 279 and 337 IPC against the
first respondent.
4.The deceased was aged about 49 years at the time
of accident and earning not less than Rs.15,000/- per
month as Mason. Claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-,
the dependents filed the claim petition.
5.It was resisted by the Insurance Company stating
that Shanmugavel was not having proper driving licence,
did not wear the helmet. Apart from that, it is also
stated that the first respondent was riding the vehicle
in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act by carrying two
persons as pillion riders.
6.The first respondent namely the owner of the
vehicle has stated that the occurrence took place because
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
of the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased
Shanmugavel.
7.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants,
4 witnesses examined and 13 documents marked. On the side
of the Insurance Company, 1 witness was marked and 2
documents marked.
8.At the conclusion of the enquiry, so far as MCOP
No.1835 of 2018 is concerned, it fixed a total
compensation of Rs.12,40,000/-. Regarding MCOP No.1866 of
2018, it is a case of injury sustained by the claimant
and assessed the disability at 15%. Adopting Rs.4,000/-
for a percentage, it fixed the compensation by adding the
conventional amount. It arrived at Rs.1,51,500/-.
9.Aggrieved over the same, separate appeals are
preferred by the Insurance Company.
10.Regarding the compensation fixed for the deceased
Shanmugavel, it is stated that the deceased was not
wearing the helmet. So, 50% ought to have been fixed
towards contributory negligence. Regarding MCOP No.1866
of 2018, it is submitted the very same grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
11.With regard to the negligence aspect, the
Tribunal has recorded a finding that the occurrence took
place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part
of the first respondent's vehicle driver. To arrive at a
conclusion, it arrived at the conclusion reached by the
Investigating Officer. After completion of the
investigation, final report was filed against the rider
of the TN-69-S-1958. There is violation on the part of
the rider of the two wheeler bearing registration
No.TN-69-S-1958,since three persons were travelling in
the two wheeler. Not only the deceased Shanmugavel, but
also the persons, who were travelling in the offending
vehicle also sustained injuries because of the accident.
So the manner in which the occurrence took place
indicated the negligence on the part of the rider of the
two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-69-S-1958. There
is no contra evidence on the side of the Insurance
Company. So, the finding recorded by the Tribunal does
not require any interference.
12.Regarding the contributory negligence of 50%, I
find that absolutely no valid reason adduced before the
Tribunal. There is no evidence on record to show that
Shanmugavel was not wearing helmet. Similarly, the
injured in MCOP No.1866 of 2018 was also not wearing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
helmet. No evidence was also produced before the Tribunal
that because of the non-wearing of the helmet, the death
occurred. In the absence of any cogent evidence to show
the same, the contention on the part of the appellant
that 50% ought to have been fixed upon the deceased
Shanmugavel and the claimant in MCOP No.1866 of 2018 is
absolutely without any basis and evidence.
13.Regarding the quantum, no argument was advanced
on the side of the appellant. On the line of quantum
fixed also, I find no error.
14.Considering the age of Shanmugavel, the notional
income at Rs,8,000/- per month was taken into account,
which appears to be reasonable and requires no
interference. To that customary amounts, future
prospectus, loss of consortium and loss of estate and
funeral expenses were added. The compensation fixed by
the Tribunal at Rs.12,40,000/- in MCOP No.1835 of 2018
appears to be reasonable and just, as per the tabulation
given hereunder:-
Loss of Dependency Rs.11,70,000/-
Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.12,40,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
15.Similarly, with regard to the compensation in
MCOP No.1866 of 2018 also, disability was fixed on the
basis of the certificate issued by the competent
authority. So percentage basis was adopted, since there
is no functional disability. To that effect, other
conventional amounts were also added. It also appears to
be reasonable and just.
16.The following tabulation shows the categorisation
of the compensation.
Disability (Rs.4,000/- x 15%) Rs. 60,000/-
Attendance charges Rs. 3,000/-
Pain and Suffering Rs. 25,000/-
Extra Nourishment Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of convenience Rs. 25,000/-
Transport Charges Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of Income Rs. 7,500/-
Medical expenses Rs. 1,000/-
Total Rs.1,51,500/-
17.In the result, both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals
are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
04/06/2024
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
To,
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Special Sub Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer,
VR/ER Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
CMA(MD)Nos.667 and 668 of 2021
04/06/2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
