Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shakila on 4 February, 2019
Author: V.M.Velumani
Bench: V.M.Velumani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 04.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.476 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.1687 of 2019
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Chennai ...Appellant
Vs
1.Shakila
2.Thirumalai
3.Hemalatha Minor
4.Sangeetha Minor
5.A.Royappan ...Respondents
(Minors represented by their mother and next friend, Shakila)
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 27.02.2007
made in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2005, on the file of Motor Vehicles Accident
Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Courts No.III,
Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramalingam
For RR1 to R4 : Mr.Richard Suresh Kumar
for G.Mannar Mannan
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award dated 27.02.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2005, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Courts No.III, Poonamallee.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2.The appellant-Insurance Company is 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2005, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Courts No.III, Poonamallee. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the above claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation for the death of one Murugan, who died in the accident that took place on 14.07.2005. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to the 5th respondent and directed both the 5th respondent as well as the appellant-Insurance Company being the insurer of the lorry to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.4,65,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. Against the said award 27.02.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2005 the appellant-Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased and adopted multiplier 15 instead of 12. The amount awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the materials available on record.
5.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the respondents 1 to 4 contended that the deceased was working as security guard and was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month. The respondents 1 to 4 did not file any document to prove the same. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2005. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. As per post mortem certificate, the age of the deceased is 40. The Tribunal applied multiplier 15 and awarded compensation for loss of income. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and loss of estate. A sum of Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium is very meagre and the amount granted by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is not excessive. The total amount awarded by the Tribunal are just compensation. There is no error warranting interference by this Court. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
6.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and cost, jointly and severally, less the amount, already deposited if any within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgement. On such deposit the respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective share as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and cost, less the amount if any already withdrawn. The share of the minor respondents 3 and 4 are directed to be deposited in any of the Nationalized Bank, till the minors attain majority. The 1st respondent/mother of the minor respondents 3 and 4 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minors/respondents 3 and 4. No costs. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.02.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rst/gbi http://www.judis.nic.in 5 To
1.Additional District Court – III, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharapuram.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 V.M.VELUMANI,J.
rst/gbi C.M.A.No.476 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.1687 of 2019 04.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in