Madras High Court
Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd vs S.Deepa on 5 September, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
C.M.A.No.145 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.No.145 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.1297 of 2023
Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd.
Reliance House, 5th Floor,
No.6, Haddows Road,
Chennai - 600 006 ..Appellant
Vs.
1. S.Deepa,
W/o Late Sudharshan
2. Minor S.Mahalakshmi,
D/o Late Sudharshan
3. Minor.A.S.Arushi,
D/o Late Sudharshan
4. A.Devakumari
W/o Anantharaman
5. C.J.Anantharaman,
S/o Janakiraman
6. Vinayagam ..Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/9
C.M.A.No.145 of 2023
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 15th February
2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No.6801 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari
For Respondents : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
for R1 to R5
JUDGMENT
(The judgment of the Court was delivered by Mrs.J.Nisha Banu,J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2022 made in
M.C.O.P.No.6801 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal Chennai (In the II Court of Small Causes, Chennai), by which,
the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.67,52,500/- with interest
at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of
realisation.
2. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The claimants have
filed M.C.O.P.No.322 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal,(Subordinate Judge) at Dharapuram. They have filed the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- as compensation for
the death of one Sudharshan in the accident that took place on
19.07.2016.
3. The claim petition has been filed stating that on the date of
accident i.e., on 19.07.2016 at about 04.30 a.m., while the deceased was
travelling in a Tempo Traveller Van bearing registration No.TN-11-S-
0193 on Chennai to Trichy Highway and when it reached near Erainji,
the driver of the van drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit
against the bus bearing registration No.TN-23-BA-6927 which was
proceeding in front of van and thereby the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and died in the hospital on 23.07.2016. The driver of the van is
responsible for the accident. The 6th respondent herein is the owner of the
van and the said van has been insured with the appellant insurance
company. Therefore, the 6th respondent as the owner of the van and the
appellant Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation to the claimants.
4. The 6th respondent/ owner of the van remained absent and
therefore, set exparte before the Tribunal.
5. The 2nd respondent/appellant Insurance Company filed counter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
statement, denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated
that the the accident was due to the rash and negligence act of the driver
of the bus. The claimants have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the
deceased with proper documentary evidence and also denied the age,
avocation and alleged income of the deceased. The claimants have to
prove the existence of valid insurance policy, RC book, fitness certificate,
permit driving license, badge etc. in respect of the driver of the van and
his vehicle at the time of the accident and that the claimants have to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased has sustained fatal injuries
due to a road accident. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/wife of the deceased
examined herself as P.W.1, One Thennavan was examined as P.W.2 and
Mr.Krishnan, Human Resources Personnel of a private limited company
where the deceased was working as P.W.3. and marked twenty one
documents as Exs.P1 to P21. On the side of the Insurance Company, no
oral evidence adduced and no exhibits were marked.
7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the Insurance company is liable to indemnify the
owner of the van and to pay compensation to the claimants and awarded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a compensation of Rs.67,52,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
would state that negligence has not been proved and contributory
negligence should have been considered. Further, the Tribunal ought to
have examined the driver of the tempo traveller to prove the negligence
but have not done so. The Tribunal has erred in relying on Form 16 of the
deceased for investment under 80C of the Income Tax Act and it should
have called for the IT returns filed by the deceased.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would state that
P.W.2 has categorically deposed that it was the driver of the tempo
traveller van who drove in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the bus
which was proceeding in front of the van and caused the accident. No
contra evidence was let in by the Insurance company. Further, the motor
vehicle inspection report of the van and the bus was marked as Ex.P8
which reveals that the damages were noted on the back side of the bus
and front side of the van which correlates the accident theory mentioned
in the First Information Report-Ex.P1. He would further state that Form
-16 for the assessment year 2016-2017 was produced before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tribunal and the Tribunal, only after analysing the same, came to the
conclusion that the deceased was in the habit of saving tax under 80C
and arrived at the total tax payable as Rs.36,000/- and that the actual
annual income as Rs.5,94,000/-. Therefore, he would state that the award
passed by the Tribunal need not be interfered with and prayed to dismiss
the appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company as well as learned counsel appearing for
the respondent 1 to 5 and perused the entire materials available on record.
11. Insofar as the negligence part is concerned, P.W.2, a third part
witness has categorically stated that it was the driver of the tempo
traveller van who drove in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the bus
which was proceeding in front of the van and caused the accident and
there was no contra evidence let in before the Tribunal. Further, the motor
vehicle inspection report of the van and the bus was marked as Ex.P8
which reveals that the damages were noted on the back side of the bus
and front side of the van which correlates the accident theory mentioned
in the First Information Report-Ex.P1. Therefore, it is proved that only
the van had hit on the backside of the bus and the accident had occurred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
only due to the negligent act of the driver of the van.
12. Insofar as the annual income of the deceased is concerned,
P.W.3 Human Resources Personnel of New Era Media Corporation
Chennai Private Limited, where the deceased worked was examined and
he has specifically stated that the employment of the deceased is
permanent in nature. Further, Ex.P9 and P19, the salary slip of the
deceased was produced to prove that the gross earnings of the deceased
as Rs.37,500/-. Further, Form -16 for the assessment year 2016-2017 of
the deceased was produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, only
after analysing the same, came to the conclusion that the deceased was in
the habit of saving tax under 80C and arrived at the total tax payable as
Rs.36,000/- and that the actual annual income as Rs.5,94,000/-. Applying
the multiplier for the age group between 36 to 40 years as 15 and
deducting 1/4th of his income for personal expenses, the Tribunal had
rightly calculated a sum of Rs.66,82,500/- as loss of income, with which,
we are not inclined to interfere with.
13. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal had rightly
fixed negligence on the part of the driver of the van and had taken the
gross salary of the deceased as Rs.37,500/-. We find no infirmity or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal and thus, we are not
inclined to interfere with the same.
14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The
award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs.
(J.N.B,J.) (R.K.M., J.)
Index : Yes / No 05.09.2024
Internet : Yes
vsi
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
R.KALAIMATHI,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vsi
05.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
