Madras High Court
The Manager vs Sangeetha on 14 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.MD) No.801 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A(MD)No.801 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8799 of 2024
The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Plot No.HIG-55, Sri Meenakshi Plaza,
I Floor, 80 Feet Road,
Anna Nagar,
Madurai Town-625 020 ... Appellant/2nd
Respondent
-Vs-
1.Sangeetha
2.Minor Sri Saga
3.Minor Sri Krishikka ... Respondents 1 to 3/
Petitioners 1 -3
(Minor Respondents 2 and 3
represented by their Mother,
Natural Guardian R1)
4.Ammasi
5.Eswari ...Respondents 4& 5/
Petitioners 4 & 5
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 06:49:01 pm )
C.M.A.MD) No.801 of 2019
6.Malarvalli ...6th Respondent/1st
Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, against the award dated 03.02.2024 passed in MCOP No.345 of 2020
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.K.R.Sivashankari
For R1 to R5 : Mr.A.Saravanan
For R6 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
One Mr.Karthikeyan, aged about 27 while proceeding in his two wheeler
bearing Registration No.TN-64-Q-8046 was hit by a tipper lorry bearing
Registration No.TN-59-AH-8781, wherein he died due to injuries sustained. His
wife, three children and parents preferred Motor Accident Claim petition before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul, claiming a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-
as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 06:49:01 pm )
2.The said claim was opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground
that the claim is excessive and that apart, the accident occurred due to the
neglience of the deceased Karthikeyan.
3.The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, held that the accident has
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Tipper Lorry.
4.The deceased was gainly employed as a salary person earning a sum of
Rs.21,879/- per month, the dependents are entitled for compensation apply
multiplier 17. Regarding the negligence, taking into account the Motor Vehicle
Inspector's Report and the evidence of P.W.2, who witnessed the accident and held
that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence of the tipper lorry driver.
Accordingly, the Insurance Company, which has indemnified the owner of the
lorry, being directed to pay a sum of Rs.47,89,560/- with 7.5% interest from the
date of petition till realisation.
5.The compensation amount now been ordered to be disbursed
proportionately amoung the wife, children and parents of the deceased. Being
aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 06:49:01 pm )
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
evidence of P.W.2 is not reliable and he cannot be construed as an eye witness.
Further, it is contended that the Motor Inspector's Report, marked as Ex.R.1,
would show that the two wheeler of the deceased been damaged on the rear side,
which would lead to inference that the deceased has turned his two wheeler
crossing the lane suddenly and got in the accident due to his negligence. Further
the learned counsel would submit that the salary of the deceased
ought to have been taken as 20,379/- and not 21,879 per month.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant would submit
that P.W.2 evidence is cogent and natural his testimony is not match through
cross-examination no suggestion put to him regarding the alleged negligence of
the deceased. The damage found in the two wheeler of the deceased is extensive
and the right side headlight, handlebar of the vehicle. Therefore, the plea of the
appellant's counsel to infer the negligence, based on the damage to the vehicle is
unsustainable. Regarding the salary, the learned counsel would submit that the
gross salary of the deceased proved to be Rs.12,879/- which includes Rs.1,500/-
towards PF contribution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 06:49:01 pm )
8.The trial Court has rightly considered the factum of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the contribution towards Social Welfare Scheme cannot be deducted
from the salary, while arriving at compensation.
9.This Court, after considering the rival submission, finds that the grounds
raised by the appellant are untenable and not supported by the evidence, whereas
the Tribunal, after due consideration of the evidence placed before it, has rightly
granted the compensation. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the
award of the Tribunal. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
[G.J., J.] & [R.P., J.]
14.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Ns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 06:49:01 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
Ns
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Principal District Judge),
Dindigul.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
and
14.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 06:49:01 pm )
