Madras High Court

The Branch Manager vs Durga Lakshmi on 6 September, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R. Hemalatha

                                                                                    CMA.No.590 of 2024



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 06.09.2024

                                                         CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                               C.M.A.No.590 of 2024 and
                                                C.M.P.No.5745 of 2024

                     The Branch Manager
                     Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,
                     10003, 8 RIICO Industrual Area, Sitapura,
                     Jaipur, Rajasthan                                    ... Appellant

                                                             vs.
                     1. Durga Lakshmi
                     2. Venkatraman                                      ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 13.11.2018 in
                     M.C.O.P.107/2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Motor
                     Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayiladuthurai.

                                             For Appellant    : Mr.S. Dhakshinamoorthy
                                             For R1           : Mr. T. Padmanabhan
                                             R2               : No appearance.


                                                      JUDGMENT

The appellant, the Shriram General Insurance Company

Limited, filed the present appeal questioning the quantum of

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

compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.107/2015 on the file

of the Principal Subordinate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Mayiladuthurai.

2. The first respondent/claimant filed a claim petition in

M.C.O.P.107/2015 under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act

before the Principal Subordinate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Mayiladuthurai, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of

her brother in a road accident that occurred on 24.07.2014.

3. The case of the claimant is that on 24.07.2014

Balasubramanian (since deceased) was riding his bicycle on Akkkur Main

Road and at about 7.30 a.m., a Mahindra van bearing Registration

number TN-09-AD-4023 belonging to one Venkatraman, the second

respondent herein, hit him, as a result of which Balasubramanian fell

down and sustained injuries all over his body. He was immediately

rushed to Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai. However, he

succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital.

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

4. According to the claimant, the accident took place due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra van bearing

Registration number TN-09-AD-4023 and that since the said van was

insured with the present appellant, the Shriram General Insurance

Company Limited, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally

liable to pay compensation to her.

5. In the Tribunal, the owner of the Mahindra van remained

absent and was set exparte. The appellant/Insurance Company resisted the

claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under Section

170 of the Motor vehicles Act.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record,

fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the van bearing

Registration number TN-09-AD-4023 and directed the appellant

Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.10,23,000/- to the

claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realisation, vide its orders dated

13.11.2018. The Tribunal also held that the liability of the Insurance

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

Company and the owner of the lorry are joint and several.

7. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant / Shriram General

Insurance Company Limited

8. Heard Mr.S. Dhakshinamoorthy, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. T. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the first

respondent/claimant.

9. Mr.S. Dhakshinamoorthy, learned counsel for the appellant

Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal had added 30% towards

future prospects though the deceased was aged 40 years on the date of

accident. He also contended that a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded by the

Tribunal towards love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral

expenses, which, contravenes the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and

others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601. He also contended that the

claimant, the sister of the deceased, was not depending on the income of

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

her brother. He therefore prayed for setting aside the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Per contra, Mr. T. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the

first respondent contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal is

based on the well laid down principles of law which were in vogue at the

time of passing of the order and therefore, the same need not be disturbed.

11. It is seen from the records that Balasubramanian died as a

bachelor and he was working as an agricultural labourer. According to

the claimant, her brother was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. In

the absence of income proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly

income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-. It is pertinent to point out that the

claimant is the married sister of the deceased Balasubramanian. The

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the

claimant was not depending on the income of the deceased, she cannot

claim any amount towards compensation for the death of her brother. It is

to be seen that the deceased did not have a family and he would have

definitely taken care of his only sister. As far as our Country is

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

concerned, a brother is the backbone of the family and is always

considered next to father. Brothers provide emotional and practical

support to their younger siblings. In the instant case, the deceased did not

have a separate family. His parents also predeceased him. Therefore, the

claimant can sustain the petition seeking compensation for the death of

her brother.

12. The claimant has not adduced any documentary evidence to

show the actual income of the deceased. The accident took place in the

year 2014 and the deceased was aged 40 years. Considering the same,the

notional monthly income fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.8,000/- seems to be

in order. The Tribunal had added 30% towards future prospects. As per

the decision of the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. vs

Pranay sethi and others (cited supra), 25% is added towards future

prospects of the deceased. Since the deceased died as a bachelor, 1/2

should be deducted towards his personal expenses. The proper multiplier

to be adopted in the instant case is 15 as per the decision rendered in

Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

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

Calculation Notional Income = Rs.8,000/-

25% Future Prospects = Rs.10,000/-

After 1/2 deduction = Rs.5,000/-

Loss of dependency = Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.9,00,000/-

In addition to that the claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and

Rs.15,000/- for 'loss of Consortium', 'loss of Estate' and 'funeral Expenses'

respectively as per the decision in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay

sethi and others (cited supra).

12.1. The modified amount under the different heads are

detailed hereunder:

                                       S.No.               Head              Amount granted
                                                                            by this court (Rs.)
                                  1.           Loss of dependency                   9,00,000/-
                                  2.           Loss of consortium                     40,000/-

                                  3.           Funeral expenses                       15,000/-
                                  4.           Loss of Estate                         15,000/-
                                               Total                                9,70,000/-


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

This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the

date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

13. In the result,

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.

Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

ii. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is scaled

down to Rs.9,70,000/- from Rs.10,23,000/-.

iii. The appellant/Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of

Rs.9,70,000/- (less the amount already deposited) together with

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim

petition till the date of deposit, within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the credit of