Madras High Court

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs N.Sunil Kumar on 5 September, 2024

Author: P.Velmurugan

Bench: P.Velmurugan

                                                                          C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED :05.09.2024

                                                    CORAM

                               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
                                                AND
                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

                                        C.M.A.(MD)No.534 of 2018
                                                  and
                                   CMP(MD)Nos.6281 of 2018 & 3375 of 2022


                     The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
                     Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
                     Divisional Office,
                     D.D.J.Complex Near,
                     Vadaseri Bus Stand, Vadaseri,
                     Nagercoil.                        .. Appellant/ 3rd Respondent

                                             Vs.
                     1.N.Sunil Kumar
                     2.Deepa                        .. Respondents 1&2/Petitioners 1&2
                     3.A.Maheen Abubakkar          .. 3rd Respondent/1st Respondent
                     4.C.Rajagopal                 .. 4th Respondent/ 2nd Respondent
                     5.S.M.Seethalakshmi           .. 5th Respondent/4th Respondent.

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor

                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award of Rs.56,21,000/- (Rupees Fifty

                     Six Lakhs and Twenty One Thousand only) dated 03.01.2018 passed in


                     Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019


                     MCOP.No.35/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

                     cum I-Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil.


                                  For Appellant            :     Mr.E.Chandrasekaran

                                  For Respondent           :     Mr.S.Jeyakumar for R1 & R2



                                                         JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

The Insurance company filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.35 of 2016, dated 03.01.2018, on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge(I-Additional

Subordinate Judge),Nagercoil.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

the materials placed before this Court.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased the deceased was

pillion rider and the 5th respondent herein was riding a Honda Activa

motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN74 R 2225 and when they were

was nearing the Christopher Colony turning, the 3rd respondent driver of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the offending vehicle Lorry bearing Registration No.RN 04 4145 came

from behind in a rash and negligent manner without raising horn sound

and dashed against the deceased vehicle due to which the claimants'

daughter died on the spot. A case was also registered by the Nagercoil

Traffic Wing Police. Since the 4th respondent herein, owner of the Lorry

was insured with the appellant, as an insurer, the appellant is liable to pay

compensation to the respondents 1 and 2.

4. The accident and the death of the deceased due to the accident

is also admitted by the appellant. The respondents 1 & 2 are the legal

heirs of the deceased is also admitted. The deceased completed 12th

Standard and waiting for the admission in the professional College like,

Engineering Courses, are admitted. Since the deceased succumbed to

accidental injury, the Nagercoil Traffic Investigation Wing Police

registered a case in Crime No.78/14 under Section 279, 337 & 304(A)

IPC against the Lorry driver/3rd respondent herein. At the time of

accident, the deceased was a spinster. The Tribunal, after the enquiry,

awarded a sum of Rs.56,21,000/- as compensation. However, the

appellant has not disputed the accident, liability and insurance, but the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

appellant challenged the quantum alone.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently objected the

quantum of compensation. He submitted that at the time of the accident,

the deceased was just completed 12th Standard and waiting for the

Engineering admission and even no employment is proved and no

income also proved. The Tribunal went to the extent of fixing

Rs.30,000/- as notional monthly income and applied multiplier at

18 and also knowing fully well that the deceased was not employed, her

future prospects also fixed as 40% and further the Tribunal awarded Rs.

10,00,000/- for love and affection. Therefore, he is mainly questioning

these three heads regarding the quantum of compensation.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 herein would

submit that since the deceased had secured 1114 marks in her 12th

Standard examination and also waiting for the admission in the

professional Course. If she got the admission and completed the studies,

she would definitely get good job and get minimum Rs.1,00,000/- per

month. By considering these facts, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rs.30,000/- per month as notional income. There is no perversity in the

fixation of monthly income, adopting the multiplier and also the future

prospects. Hence, according to him, the award passed by the Tribunal is

just compensation.

7. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly,

the deceased was only a spinster. After completion of the 12th Standard,

she was waiting for the admission in the professional course. However,

she died due to the accident and though the award of compensation

cannot be compensate to her life sufferings, however, considering the

fact that since she is unemployed, this Court feel that Rs.15,000/- would

be appropriate for fixing as notional monthly income. Considering the

brightness in the studies and her date of birth is 04.06.1996 and on the

date of accident ie.,on 21.06.2014, the deceased is 18 years, which was

not disputed and hence, the proper multiplier is 18. Since the deceased is

not in employment either in the Government undertaking or in private

employment, as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of National Insurance Company Limited .vs. Pranay Sethi and

others reported in 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC), 40% of the income is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

added towards future prospects. Since the deceased died as a spinster,

50% of the income is deducted for personal expenses and hence, the

compensation under the head loss of income has to be fixed as under:

Loss of Income:

[Age of the deceased is 18 years] Notional monthly income : Rs.15,000/-

                                  Add:Future Prospects at 40%
                                  [15,000*40/100]                   : Rs.6,000/-
                                                                    ----------------
                                                                     Rs.21,000 /-
                                                                    -----------------
                                  Less: Personal Expenses at 1/2 th

                              [21,000 x 1/2 ]                        : Rs. 10,500/-
                                                                     -------------------
                                                                     Rs. 10,500 /-

                     Annual contribution to the family
                     [Rs.10,500/- x 12]                             : Rs.1,26,000 /-


                     Multiplier - 18                               : Rs.1,26,000 x 18= Rs.22,68,000/-

Therefore Loss of Income : Rs.22,68,000/-.

8. As far as the love and affection is concerned, this Court is of the

view that each of the claimants are entitled only a sum of Rs.40,000/-

each, totally, Rs.80,000/-. On overall consideration, the compensation

awarded under the other heads is reasonable and hence confirmed. Thus

the compensation is modified as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sl. Description Amount Amount Award No awarded by the awarded by confirmed, Tribunal this Court enhanced or Rs. Rs. granted

1 Loss of income 45,36,000/- 22,68,000/- Reduced 2 Filial Consortium 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed 3 Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 4 Transportation charges 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 5 Damages to clothes 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed 6 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 7 Love and Affection 10,00,000/- 80,000/- Reduced Total Rs.56,21,000/- Rs.24,33,000/-

9. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the

award amount is reduced from Rs.56,21,000/- to Rs.24,33,000/- with

interest at the rate of 7.5% pa from the date of claim petition till the date

of realisation. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the modified award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the

award amount, if any aleady deposited, within a period of eight (8) weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant Insurance

Company is at liberty to withdraw the excess amount already deposited,

if any.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10. On such deposit, the respondents 1&2 / claimants 1&2 are

entitled to withdraw the aforesaid amount together with interest and costs