Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Priya on 23 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.1387 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.1387 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.15027 of 2024
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Sri Sai Kamatchi Complex,
Opposite Government Arts College,
Siraichalai Road,
Selam Town and District – 636 007. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Priya,
2.Vignesh,
3.Ravichandran. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 14.03.2024
passed in M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2023, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
C.M.A.(MD) No.1387 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For Respondents
for R1 : Mr.G.Mohankumar
for R2 & 3 : Dispensed with
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
seeking reduction of the compensation.
2. Since the findings on negligence and liability are not under
challenge, the facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are not
necessary for the disposal of this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
claimant is the married sister of the deceased, who was living separately;
that their parents are no more and there is no evidence to show that she
was dependant on the deceased and therefore, the award of the Tribunal
under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is erroneous and prayed for reduction
of the compensation.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Smt.Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd and another reported in 2007 (1) TN MAC 385 (SC) and an
unreported the case in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Anand
pal and others in SLP (Civil) No.7805 of 2022, dated 04.12.2023.
5. The learned counsel for the claimant/first respondent, per contra,
submitted that she is the younger sister of the deceased and the parents
died, when the children were infants; and that the claimant was brought up
by the other family members and by the deceased and therefore, the
claimant had established that she was a dependant on the deceased.
6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Branch Manager, ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Company vs. Kaliyamoorthy and others
reported in 2016 (2) TAC 284.
7. Notice to the respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with vide order of
this Court, dated 18.10.2024.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable?’
9. Admittedly, the claimant is the younger sister of the deceased.
She is married and living separately. However, the question is whether she
had suffered loss of dependency. The right to file the claim petition is not
in question. The only ground raised by the appellant is that since she had
not suffered loss of dependency, the compensation under the head ‘loss of
dependency’ has to be set aside. The law in this regard is well settled. A
legal representative is different from a dependent. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held in the cases Manjuri Bera’s case (cited supra) and Anand
Pal’s case (cited supra) that the brother or sister can maintain a claim
petition, though the loss of dependency will depend upon the facts and
circumstance of each case. In those cases, since the claimants were elder
siblings of the deceased, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that there
was no loss of dependency. However, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, it is seen that the children, namely the
deceased and the claimant, lost their parents at an early age and the
deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident. Therefore, though the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
younger married sister was living separately, her dependency on the
deceased cannot be totally ruled out. But at the same time, as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited supra, the dependency will
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
10. The ordinary method of computation may not be appropriate to
determine the loss of dependency. The claimant had established that the
deceased was running a hotel. Hence, the notional income fixed by the
Tribunal at Rs.15,166/- p.m at the time of accident, that took place in the
year 2020, cannot be faulted. The award under the head ‘loss of estate’,
‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘funeral expenses’ is modified as
Rs.16,500/-, Rs.44,000/- and Rs.16,500/- respectively, as they have to be
enhanced by 10% every three years.
11. As regards the dependency, this Court is of the view that since
the deceased was a bachelor and the dependent claimant was married, the
personal expenses of the deceased can be fixed at 65%. The Tribunal had,
however, not considered the future prospects. Since the deceased was
aged 23 years at the time of accident, 40% has to be added towards future
prospects and the multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Therefore, the award under
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the ‘loss of dependency’ has to be Rs.15,166/- + Rs.6,066/- (40%) x 12 x
18 x 35% (65% towards future prospects) = Rs.16,05,139/-. The award
towards medical bills is confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is modified as follows:
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by the awarded by this confirmed,
Tribunal Court enhanced or
granted
1 Medical bills Rs. 93,428/- Rs. 93,428/- Confirmed
2 Dependency Rs.16,37,928/- Rs.16,05,139/- Reduced
compensation
3 Loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 16,500/- Reduced
4 Loss of love and Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 44,000/- Reduced
affection
5 Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 16,500/- Reduced
Total Rs.18,15,356/- Rs.17,75,567/- Reduced by
Rs.39,789/-
12. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay the
modified compensation of Rs.17,75,567/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs
Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Seven only) together with
interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till the date of
realization and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to
withdraw the award amount with interest and costs, less the amount
already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the
Tribunal.
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sivagangai.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
23.10.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
