Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Palaneeswari on 5 February, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.(MD)No.495 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A.(MD)No.495 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5807 of 2019
1.The Divisional Manager,
I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance
Company Ltd., Office,
Prabhavadi, Mumbai.
2.The Branch Manager,
I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
7 A.A. Road, Neare Layola Technical Institute,
Madurai District. ... Appellants
-Vs-
1.Palaneeswari
2.Jeyakumar
3.Bhagavathy Priya
4.Vijayalakshmi
5.Jeyaraman ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree dated
14.12.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.66 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.495 of 2019
Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Devakottai and allow this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal.
For Appellants : M/s.V.Muthu Kamatchi
For R1 to R4 : Mr.J.Ananda Kumar
For R5 : Given Up
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by
the quantum fixed by the Tribunal for the death of one Ganesan, aged about 56
years in the motor accident occurred on 18.03.2012 at about 10.45 p.m., near
Kovilur Road opposite to Ganga Hotel.
2.According to the claimants, the said Ganesan, who is the husband of
the 1st claimant and father of the claimants 2 to 4, is running a bakery in the name
and style of Jhansi bakery at Kovilur Road, Karaikudi. On the fateful day, while
he was about to leave home after closing the shop along with one Soundara
Pandian, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 63 AZ 1137 owned by
the 1st respondent, namely, Jayaraman, which is duly insured by the respondents 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and 3 Insurance Company, dashed against the said Ganesan. In the said accident,
the said Ganesan along with his vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 63 D 8597
was thrown to the road. The pillion rider, namely, Soundara Pandian also
sustained injury. Both were taken to the Karaikudi Government Hospital and
later, the said Ganesan was shifted to Apollo Hospital on 19.03.2012. After
treatment for nearly 16 days, the said Ganesan succumbed to the injury on
05.04.2012. As per the claim petition, the said Ganesan was earning around a sum
of Rs.20,000/- per month from his agricultural land and bakery business. At the
time of his death, he was aged about 56 years. The claimants are the dependants
of the said Ganesan. Therefore, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.30 lakhs.
3.The claim petition was opposed by the Insurance Company. The
owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and was set ex-parte.
4.To prove the claim, the claimants had relied upon 29 documents and
examined 8 witnesses. To negate the claim one Umasankar was examined as
D.W.1 and no documents were filed on behalf of the respondents.
5.The Tribunal, after taking note of the fact that the income of the
deceased is well supported by the certificate given by the Tahsildar and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
documents supporting the property held by the deceased, has awarded a sum of
Rs.25,41,188/-. The compensation breakup is as under:-
Sl.No. Heads Award
1 Loss of income Rs.16,20,000/-
2 for Medical Bills Rs.7,91,188/-
3 Loss of Consortium (for 1st claimant) Rs.50,000/-
4 Loss of Love and Affection (Rs.30,000X3) Rs.30,000/-
5 For Nourishment Rs.10,000/-
6 For Transport Expenses Rs.30,000/-
7 For Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.25,41,188/-
6.The Tribunal apportioned 50% of the compensation amount to the
wife of the deceased / 1st claimant and the remaining 50% awarded to be shared
among three children. The quantum of the award is under challenge in this
appeal.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that
the Tribunal had erred in fixing monthly income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/-
solely relying upon the certificate given by the Tahsildar, which is marked as
Ex.B.14, which has not been corroborated with adequate proof. He would further
submit that admittedly, the 3rd respondent Bhagavathy Priya / daughter of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deceased is a married lady and she is living independently with her husband and
children and she is not the dependant of the deceased and therefore, the deduction
under the personal expenditure of the deceased ought to have been 1/3, whereas
the Tribunal has deducted only 1/4th of the income for personal expenditure.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 would
submit that the deceased, apart from running a bakery in the name and style of
Jhansi Bakery, was having sufficient income from his agricultural property and
buildings. To show his wherewithal and source of income, the claimants have
marked Ex.B.14 income certificate issued by the Tahsildar, sale deed of the bakery
Ex.B.10, sale deed of vacant residential site and house, which were marked as
Ex.B.11 and B.12. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence
placed by the claimants and had fixed monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.20,000/- per month and had deducted ¼ towards his personal expenditure,
taking into account the size of the dependants.
9.This Court perusing the evidence finds that the deceased Ganesan
died, when he was 56 years old and considering the source of income, which is
proved through Ex.B.10 to B.13, the Tahsildar issued income certificate, which is
marked as Ex.B.14. The Insurance Company has not let in any contra evidence to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disbelieve the veracity of the documents mentioned above. Particularly, Ex.B.13
indicates that the deceased had 7 acres of land and had immovable properties,
apart from running bakery business. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the
appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal, insofar as the income of the
deceased fixed by the Tribunal is concerned.
10.Regarding deduction towards personal expenditure, this Court finds
that the Tribunal had considered the fact that the deceased has left behind four
dependants and therefore, 1/4th of his income had been deducted.
11.This Court, while considering the aforesaid submission, though
agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the 3rd
claimant is married to one Sathish Kumar and living independently, it does not
mean that she had no dependency on her father. As a daughter, she has to depend
on her father both emotionally even at times financially. In such circumstances,
the Tribunal had rightly deducted 1/4th of his income towards personal
expenditure.
12.At this length of time, this Court finds that there is no justification in
interfering with the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the Tribunal. The
appellants shall deposit the award amount with interest within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.J., J.] & [R.P., J.]
05.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Yuva
To
1.The Sub Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Devakottai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
Yuva
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
