Madras High Court
The Manager vs Kamala on 8 November, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
C.M.A.No.2987 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A.No.2987 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.24870 of 2024
The Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Motor Third Party HUB,
Silingi Buildings, 4th Floor,
No.134, Greams Road,
Chennai 600 006. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Kamala
W/o.Raman
2.Minor.Vaishnavi
3.Minor.Supriya
4.Algammal
5.T.R.V.Ramkumar ... Respondents
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act,1988, against the award and decree dated 12.10.2022 made in
M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
VI Small Causes Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/8
C.M.A.No.2987 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.G.J.Baskar Narayan
for R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J. Nisha Banu, J)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2022 passed in
MCOP.No.274 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Small
Causes Court, Chennai, by which, a sum of Rs.41,27,500/- was granted as
compensation to the respondents/claimants herein.
2. The case of the claimants in the claim petition is that on 07.06.2014 at
about 22.15 p.m when the deceased Raman, his friend Rajkumar and the 1st
respondent got down from State Transport Bus at Thiruvidanthai Bus Stop to
go to Mammalapuram and while crossing from west to east on the road
passing towards south to north direction, a Hyundai i-20 car bearing
registration No.TN-64-B-0969 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the deceased and the 1st respondent, due to which, the said Raman
sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and the 1st respondent
sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Therefore, the claimants/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents herein who are the legal representatives of one Raman have
filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai,
claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.
3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the Hundai i20 car and awarded a sum of Rs.41,27,500/- as
compensation to the claimants and as the 1st respondent/ owner of the said car
had insured with the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent insurance company
was directed to pay the award amount to the claimants/respondents.
4. Challenging the said award dated 12.10.2022 made in
M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2019, the appellant-Insurance Company has come out with
the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred
in awarding a sum of Rs.41,27,500/- as compensation inspite of the fact that
the respondents failed to prove their claim of loss of income. Learned counsel
for the appellant would submit that Exs.P4, P5 and P6 are inadequate to
presume the alleged income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- per month. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would further state that in the absence of statement of account of the business,
GST turnover statement and payment details of third party purchasers, the
Tribunal ought not to have assumed more than Rs.6,500/- per month. He
would further state that the Tribunal ought not to have applied 14 years
multiplier as the respondents 1 to 4 have not properly proved the age of the
deceased and the Tribunal ought to have added 25% towards future
prospectus in the absence of admissible age proof.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants would state that the deceased was
doing stone sculpture business and was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per
month, however, the Tribunal had fixed only a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month
as his earning. The learned counsel would further state that only based on the
age of the deceased, the Tribunal added 25% towards future prospect.
Therefore, he would pray to dismiss the appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned
counsel for the 1st to 4th respondents and perused the materials available on
record.
8. The appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal mainly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
questioning the quantum of the award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.41,27,500/- as compensation to the claimants. It is not
in dispute that the deceased was a sculptor and was also doing stone sculpture
business. Though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning
more than Rs.30,000/- per month, the Tribunal has granted only Rs.25,000/-
per month as loss of income. Ex.P4 to P6 were marked to prove that the
deceased was taking orders for doing sculpture work. However, the Tribunal
has found that though he was doing the sculpture work and taking orders from
third parties, since there was no proper evidence to prove that he was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month, had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- only.
9. Further, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 45 years
based on Ex.P2 death report, Ex.P3 Death certificate and Ex.P34 postmortem
report and the Insurance Company did not raise any objection as to the age of
the deceased before the Tribunal and the same was also recorded by the
Tribunal at paragraph No.10 of the judgment. Therefore, granting 25% towards
future prospect based on the age of the deceased is fair and reasonable and
there is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by
this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident as per
Ex.P3/ death certificate and Ex.P34/post-mortem certificate. The Tribunal
deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses, applied multiplier 14 and awarded a
sum of Rs.2,81,250/- per annum towards loss of dependency and the total loss
of dependency comes to Rs.2,81,250 x 14 = Rs.39,37,500/-. Considering the
date of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased, the amount
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is not excessive and it
does not warrant any interference by this Court. The Tribunal, after considering
both oral and documentary evidence, awarded a total sum of Rs.41,27,500/- to
the respondents 1 to 4 under different heads, which in our opinion is not
excessive and the same is hereby confirmed.
11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
sum of Rs.41,27,500/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondents 1 to 4/claimants, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The
appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount awarded
by the Tribunal along with interest and cost, less the amount already deposited
if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 4/claimants are permitted to
withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the apportionment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the
amount if any, already withdrawn. The shares of the minors/respondents 1 to 4
are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks till the
minors attain majority. The 1st respondent being the mother of the
minors/respondents 2 & 3 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in
three months for the welfare of the minors. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(J.N.B., J.) (R.S.V., J.)
08.11.2024
vsi
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
VI Small Causes Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
vsi
08.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
