Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Punitha on 22 January, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
C.M.A(MD)No.1140 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2024
&
C.M.P(MD)Nos.11915 & 15842 of 2024
The Branch Manager,
M/s.Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd.,
D.No.2, Dare House, 2nd Floor,
N.S.C. Bose Road,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Appellant/ 3rd Respondent
Vs.
1.Punitha
2.Narmadha Devi
3.Naveena Devi
4.Minor Dineshkumar ...Respondents 1 to 4 / Petitioners 1 to 4
(Minor Rep. By his mother and natural guardian 1st respondent)
5.Sivakumar
6.Selvi ...Respondents 5 & 6/ Respondents 1 & 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/27
C.M.A(MD)No.1140 of 2024
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
20.06.2023 made in MCOP No.171 of 2017 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District and Sessions Court,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, and allow this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Shyllappakalyan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Tamil Mani – R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
The appellant (3rd respondent-Insurance Company) has filed
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair order and decreetal order
dated 20.06.2023 passed in MCOP No.171 of 2017 by the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District and Sessions Court,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Brief case of the claimant before the lower Court is as
follows:
(a) The deceased Karuppasamy was working as Special Sub
Inspector of Police at Nagaiahpuram Police Station, Peraiyur Sub
Division, Madurai District. On 13.02.2017 at about 11.45 p.m., he met
with an accident. At the time, he was returning from Nagaiahpuram
Police Station to T.Kallupatti, riding a Hero Honda Motor Bike bearing
Registration No.TN 67 K 6405 in a slow speed, duly observing the traffic
rules and regulation. As he neared the Anjaneya Temple from North to
South from T.Kallupatti to Madurai Main Road, the 1st Respondent
approached, driving his Mini Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.
TN 59 BL 3618 in a rash and negligent manner without following the
traffic rules. He drove from the opposite direction on the said road and
dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased, Karuppasamy. Due to
the sudden impact, Karuppasamy sustained grievous injuries on his head
and all over his body, and succumbed to injuries on the spot. The
accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the 1st respondent. At
that time one Shankar, son of Rajagopal, and his friend Kaliappan, son of
Kalimuthu were driving from North to South direction on the said Road
in a two wheeler. They witnessed the said accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(b) At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 52
years. He was hale, healthy and energetic. He was working in the Police
Department as a Special Sub Inspector, and was earning a sum of
Rs.45,896/- per month, and had handed over the same to the petitioner.
The deceased was the only breadwinner of the family. If he had not met
with an accident, he would later be promoted as Inspector of Police and
get higher salary.
(c) The 1st petitioner is the wife of the deceased, the 2nd and
3rd petitioners are daughters of the deceased, and the 4th petitioner is the
minor son of the deceased. The 1st petitioner is a patient and is not
employed. The 4th petitioner is a minor and is a school-going student.
Due to the death of his father, his higher education and future academic
attainment have been affected. The petitioners depend upon the income
of the deceased. After the death of the petitioner’s husband, the
petitioners income and the access to essential commodities were affected.
The first petitioner lost her husband at a young age. This loss can not be
compensated in terms of money.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(d) The 1st respondent drew the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner, and the accident occurred due to his negligence. If the
1st respondent had driven the vehicle in a proper manner, the accident
would not have occurred. The 1st respondent was employed with the 2nd
respondent, and during his course of employment, the accident occurred.
Therefore, the 2nd respondent is vicariously liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioners. At the time of the accident, the 2nd
respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 59 BL 3618, was
insured with the 3rd respondent, and the insurance policy was in force.
Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severely liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners.
(e) The petitioner further states that a criminal case has been
registered by the Inspector of Police, T.Kallupatti Police Station in Crime
No.41/2017 for the offence under sections 279, 304(A) and 201 of IPC as
against the 1st respondent and the same is pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur.
(f) The respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to
the petitioners for “No fault liability” as the first mentioned claim at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
first instance.
(g) The petitioners claimed a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, including
the no fault liability claim with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
3. The brief averments contained in the counter affidavit
filed by the third respondent are as follows:
(a) The 3rd respondent denied the allegations contained in the
petitions, save those that are specifically admitted in the counter.
(b) The accident did not take place in the manner alleged by
the petitioners. The petitioners suppressed the real facts of the accident
and the real manner in which the accident occurred. A reading of the FIR
that reported the death of Special Sub Inspector of Police, Karuppasamy
conclusively established that the 2nd respondent's vehicle was not
involved in the accident. The 2nd respondent's vehicle has been brought
into the picture solely with the objective of claiming compensation from
the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. It is reliably learnt that the 2 nd
respondent is hand-in-glove with the petitioners for bringing the claim
application. The 2nd respondent’s vehicle did not cause the accident. As
evident from the record, the deceased was working as Special Sub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Inspector of Police, Nagaiahpuram Police Station. There is no nexus for
the deceased to be traveling in the place where the accident was reported.
From the reading of the FIR, it can be inferred to be the result of a 'hit
and run' case by an unknown vehicle. There is no iota ofevidence to
connect the vehicle of the 2nd respondent with the accident. Even the
criminal records and the claim application have established that the
vehicle of the 2nd respondent was not involved in the accident. The 1st
respondent was not in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
The 1st and 2nd were respondent brought into the picture only for the
compensation that can be recovered from this respondent.
(c) It is not admitted that at the time of accident, the 2nd
respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 59 BL 3618 was
insured with the 3rd respondent Insurance Company, and the petitioners
are put to strict proof of the same through documentary evidence.
(d) The age of the deceased and the relationship between the
petitioners and the respondents are put strict proof by documentary
evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(e) At the time of accident, the deceased Karuppasamy was
not in possession of any valid and effective driving license to drive the
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 67 K 4605. So, this accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. This
respondent is not liable to give any compensation to the petitioners.
(f) In the claim petition, the motorcycle bearing Registration
No.TN 67 K 4605, its owner, and its insurance company were not added
as parties. They are, however, important parties. The claim petition is to
be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.
(g) At the time of accident, the 1st respondent did not have a
valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle bearing
Registration No.TN 59 BL 3618. So the 2nd respondent violated the
Motor Vehicles Act and insurance policy condition. Therefore, this
respondent is not liable to give any compensation to the petitioners.
(h) The entire restricted claim of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Lakhs only) by the petitioners is too high, excessive and arbitrary,
and not based on any legal standards.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 argued that
after investigation, in the final report, the Investigation Officer concluded
that the vehicle belonging to the 2nd respondent which was driven by the
1st respondent was indeed involved in the accident. The forensic report
also confirmed the same. The deceased was working in the Police
department. The claimants produced the relevant documents to prove his
salary and age. The insurance policy taken by the 2nd respondent with the
3rd respondent was in force and the 3rd respondent is liable to pay
compensation. Therefore the Trial Court properly fixed the
compensation, and no interference is required, and the appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
5. On the side of the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were
examined, and Exs.P1 to Exs.P16 were marked. On the side of the
respondents, RW1 and RW2 were examined, and Exs.R1 to Exs.R4 were
marked.
6. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
records, allowed the petition and awarded a compensation of Rs
65,36,212/- under the following heads :
Loss of Income Rs.63,61,212/-
Loss of Love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.65,36,212/-
The learned Judge directed the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company to pay
the entire amount within a period of one month.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, who is
the 3rd respondent before the lower Court, against the quantum of
compensation with the following grounds among others :
1. That the judgment and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law,
weight of evidence, probabilities and circumstances of the case and is
liable to be set aside.
2. That the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Appellant since
the 6th Respondent/2nd Respondent Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN
59 BL3618 was not at all involved in the alleged accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. That the Tribunal ought to have considered that as per Ex.P3
Motor Vehicle Inspection Report of the 6th Respondent/2nd Respondent, it
shows damages, but per contra the section alteration report shows that
the damages were rectified in order to get over from the case.
4. That the Tribunal failed to note the contention of this Appellant
as to how the 6th Respondent/2nd Respondent's vehicle was identified to
have been involved in the alleged accident, was not at all considered as
an issue, and it was not framed as an issue in the judgment.
5. Though PW2 in his cross examination says that he identified the
1st Respondent accused with the help of CCTV footage, no such evidence
was produced to prove the same.
6. That the Tribunal failed to note that the deceased also belongs to
the investigator's family. In order to help the deceased family, the 1st
respondent was brought into the picture.
7. That the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RWI and
ought to have exonerated this Appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. That the Tribunal had not even considered the Appellants' plea
of non-involvement and had not framed the question as an issue as well.
On this ground alone, the order of the learned Trial Judge is liable to be
set aside.
9. Without prejudice, the Tribunal erred in considering the last pay
drawn income of Rs.45,896/- of the deceased for the alleged accident in
the year 2017, and fixed future prospects at 40%, which is against the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. Without prejudice, the Tribunal failed to consider the family
pension to be received by the Respondents 1 to 4/Petitioners on the death
of the deceased before fixing the loss of income, and erroneously
awarded a sum of Rs. 65,36,212/- without sufficient documentary
evidence.
11. Without prejudice, the Tribunal failed to deduct the income tax
amount from the income of the deceased.
12. Without prejudice, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded
interest for the future prospects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. That viewed from any angle, the quantum of the compensation
awarded at Rs.63,61,212/- by the Tribunal is against the pleadings, facts,
evidence and reality as well as against the well laid principles of law.
14. That the judgment and decree of the Tribunal is even otherwise
illegal and erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Hence, prayed to allow
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material available on records.
9. In this case, the points for consideration are:
1.Whether the vehicle bearing Registration No.
TN 59 BL 3618 was involved in the said
accident?
2.Whether the quantum of claim amount arrived
by the Trial Court is far too excessive?
10. Point No.1
The parties are arrayed in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal,
as per their own ranking before the Trial Court in M.C.O.P. No.171 of
2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. As per the Appellant/3rd respondent Insurance Company,
the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 59 BL 3618 was not at all
involved in the accident. As per Ex.P3, Motor Vehicle Inspection Report
of the 6th respondent/2nd respondent, it shows damages. But per contra the
section alteration report shows that the damages were rectified in order to
get over from the case. It is not established by the petitioners that the 6th
respondent / 2nd respondent vehicle was involved in the accident. PW2 in
his cross-examination said that he identified the vehicle with the help of
CCTV footage, but no such evidence was produced to prove the same.
Since the deceased belongs to the Police Department, in order to help his
family, the 1st respondent was brought into the picture. The inspection
was done on the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 59 BL 3618 only
after 14 days from the date of accident. Hence it is proved that the said
vehicle was not at all involved in the accident.
12. On the side of the petitioners, the FIR was marked as
Ex.P1 by P.W.1. FIR registered Crime No.41/2017 at T.Kallupatti Police
Station on 14.02.2017. In column No.7 of the FIR (the details of
known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars) it was
mentioned that the driver was unidentified.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. The complaint was lodged by one Ramakrishnan, Special
Sub Inspector of Police. He had given a complaint, stating that on
13.02.2017 at about 22.00 hours, he was on patrol duty. On information,
he found the dead body of the deceased Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Karuppasamy, with head injury and a right leg fracture. He also found
that his vehicle was damaged on the front side. He had intimated the
same to the concerned station for due action.
14.It is true that in the First Information Report, the name of
the accused / 1st respondent is not seen. But in the final report, the 1st
respondent has been arrayed as an accused, and the same was filed on
12.09.2017, before the Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur. However, the
respondent did not challenge that a false case had been foisted against
him. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the vehicle bearing
Registration No. TN 59 BL 3618 was not involved in the accident, has
been proved to be false.
15. Ex.P3 is the MVI report issued by the Motor Vehicle
Inspector, RTO Office, Madurai. When perused, it reveals that the
vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 59 BL 3618 Ashok Leyland Dost,
load vehicle belonging to the 2nd respondent was damaged on both its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
right and front sides, the front of its right side rear wheel mudguard was
broken, and the right side rear wheel disc was bent. Likewise, the vehicle
bearing Registration No. TN 67 K 6405, which was driven by the
deceased Karuppasamy was also had a damaged front wheel, broken
mudguard front fork, headlight and front light, broken right and left side
indicator lights, bent front bumper, bent rear brake pedal, and a broken
left side body cover (below rider seat). The Vehicle Inspector opined that
the accident did not occurr due to any mechanical fault. The above
documents prove that the 1st respondent’s vehicle was involved in the
accident.
16. Further, one Rajendran, Sub Inspector of Police who
registered the FIR, investigated the case and filed a final report has been
examined as PW3. He had stated that he had arrested the accused with
the help of CCTV camera footage. He gathered the material objects and
sent the same to the forensic lab and as per Ex.P.16. The paint found in
the place of occurrence and on the vehicle which was involved in the
accident are one and the same. During cross examination, it was stated by
the 1st respondent that CCTV camera footage was not produced before
the Court. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
criminal Court to hold detailed enquiry. It is a beneficial legislation. The
available material evidence clearly proved that the 1st respondent's
vehicle was involved in the accident and that the accident had occurred
due to the negligent driving of the 1st respondent, and that the 2nd
respondent is the owner of the vehicle. It is also proved that at the time of
accident, the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 59 BL 3618 was
insured with the 3rd respondent, and that the insurance policy was valid at
the time of accident, which was mentioned in the MVI report. Further it
revealed that the driver of the vehicle, respondent No.1, was holding a
valid driving license bearing No. TN5920150006204 which remained
valid up until 19.09.2019.
17. MVI report further shows that the deceased was also
holding driving license bearing No.TN5820080007983 which was valid
up until 12.11.2020. The contention of the appellant that the 1 st
respondent was not holding a driving license is proved false.
18. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the 1st respondent's
vehicle was involved in the accident. His vehicle was also found with
damages. But the first respondent, without filing any complaint against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the deceased, absconded from the place of occurrence. It can be inferred
that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the 1st respondent,
and that at the time of accident, the 1st respondent's vehicle was insured
with the 3rd respondent and the same was in force. Further, the deceased
also had a valid driving license.
19. The 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the Police
Crime Branch, stating that the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 59
BL 3618 was falsely implicated and that a false charge sheet had been
filed and that their company had been falsely implicated in the case. One
Mr.Srinivas has been examined as RW2 during cross examination. He
had admitted that he had not filed any private complaint against the
Police for filing a false final charge sheet.
20. The Junior Assistant of the RTO office has been
examined as RW1, but the respondent could not get any favorable
answers from the said witness. In Ex.P16, it was clearly stated that the
accident had not occurred due to any mechanical problem. Therefore, we
are satisfied that the first respondent's vehicle was involved in the
accident, and that the third respondent insurance company is liable to pay
compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the
Tribunal failed to consider the family pension to be received by the
Respondents 1 to 4/Petitioners upon the death of the deceased before
fixing the loss of income and hence erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.
65,36,212/- without sufficient documentary evidence, and that awarding
other heads are highly excessive and not reasonable.
22. In connection to this, we rely upon the judgement in
Sebastiani Lakra and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
and another reported in 2019(17) SCC 465, in which paragraph No.14
held as follows :
“14. As far as the amounts of pension
and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on
account of the service rendered by the deceased to
his employer. It is now an established principle
of service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity
are the property of the deceased. They are more in the
nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee
works throughout his life expecting that on his
retirement he will get substantial amount as pension
and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on
death, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
applying the same principles, the said amount
cannot be deducted.”
Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is
unsustainable.
23. Point No.2 :
Now we are to decide whether the quantum fixed by the trial
court is proper or liable to be set aside.
24. Admittedly, the deceased Karuppasamy was working in
the Police Department. The pay slip of the deceased issued for the month
of January 2017 was produced as Ex.P.8, which shows that the last pay
received by the said Karuppasamy was Rs.45,896/- and that the
certificate was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
The age of the deceased as per the driving license Ex.P7 and Aadhar
Card Ex.P6 shows that he was born on 22.06.1964. The date of accident
is 13.02.2017. Therefore at the time of accident, he was 52 years old.
25. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased as per
Ex.P10- legal heirship certificate. He left behind his wife - 1st petitioner,
two daughters - 2nd and 3rd petitioners, and one minor son - 4th petitioner.
The total number of legal heirs are four. In Sarla Verma and others vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2000 (9) SCC 310, the
Honorable Apex Court in Para 14 of the judgment held as follows :
“14. Though in some cases the deduction to be
made towards personal and living expenses is calculated
on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the
general practice is to apply standardized deductions.
Having considered several subsequent decisions of this
court, we are of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to
3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the
number of dependent family members exceed six.”
In this case too, the dependent family members are four in number. The
trial Judge properly deducted ¼th of the amount from the salary towards
the personal expenditure of the deceased. We do not wish to interfere
with the said deduction as per the guidelines stipulated in the above case.
26. As far as future prospect is concerned, the Trial Judge, in
addition to salary, added 40% as future prospects. Here, we refer to the
leading judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Para 61 of the judgment concludes that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed
to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi
should have been well advised to refer the matter to a
larger Bench as it was taking a different view than
what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a
coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of
the same strength cannot take a contrary view than
what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision
in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier
point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding
precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition
of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years,
should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the
age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In
case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary
should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or
on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the
established income should be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition
of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between
the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established
income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the
tribunals and the courts shall be guided by
paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as
indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with
paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the
basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-,
Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of
10% in every three years.”
27. Therefore, for fixation of future prospects in clause (iii),
while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the
income of the deceased should be made, in instances where the deceased
had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years. The addition
should be of 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition
should be 15%.
28. However, the Trial Court fixed the future prospects at
40%, which is improper, as the deceased was aged about 52 years at the
time of accident. Therefore, his future prospects should be 15% in
addition to the salary and not a 40% as fixed by the Trial Judge, in view
of the guidelines stipulated in the above judgment. We modify the future
prospects from 40% to 15% as follows.
29. The total salary of the deceased at the time of his death
is Rs.45,896/- and deducting 1/4th of personal income at Rs.11,474/-
(45,896 – 11,474) = Rs.34,422/-. Adding 15% future prospects at Rs.
5163/- (34,422 + 5163) = Rs.39,585. Therefore, the deceased's annual
income is (39,585 x 12) Rs.4,75,020/-.
Multiplier 11 to be applied (4,75,020 x 11) = Rs. 52,25,220
Loss of estate Rs.15,000 +
loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 +
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000 = Rs. 70,000
—————-
Total compensation arrived at = Rs. 52,95,220
—————-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the award passed by the trial Court is modified as follows :
(1) The Appellant/3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to
pay a sum of Rs.52,95,220/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Ninety Five
Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty only) towards compensation to the
respondents 1 to 4 /petitioners along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount.
Deduct the amount if already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.
171/2017 on the file of the Principal District Court/Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(2) On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3/claimants 1 to 3 are
permitted to withdraw their share, deduct the amount already withdrawn,
if any, together with proportionate interest and costs, as apportioned by
the Tribunal, by filing an appropriate petition before the Tribunal.
(3) The Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor 4th
respondent/4th petitioner in a nationalized bank until he attains majority.
The 1st respondent herein, who is the mother/guardian, is permitted to
withdraw the interest amount once in three months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(4) There shall be no order as to costs.
(5) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.R.S., J.) & (R.P., J.)
22.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur,
Copy to
1.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment in
22.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
