Madras High Court
M/S.Chief Manager vs / on 19 November, 2020
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.646 of 2016
& C.M.P.No.5309 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date: 19.11.2020
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.646 of 2016
& C.M.P.No.5309 of 2016
M/s.Chief Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Third Party's Claims Hub, New No.216,
Old No.115, Prakasam Salai, Broadway,
Chennai – 108. ... Appellant
/versus/
1. S.Mani,
2. Dhanabakkiyam,
3. S.Periyan,
4. Anjalai,
5. T.Kamatchi.
6. V.Gowri, ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying against the decree and judgment dated 26th day of
November 2015, made in M.C.O.P.No.2006 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (1 Additional District Court), Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mrs.Elveera Ravichandran
For Respondents : No appearance
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.646 of 2016
& C.M.P.No.5309 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(The case has been heard through video conference) Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. In spite of notice to the respondents, they have not engaged counsels.
2. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the compensation awarded to the claimants for legal heirs of the deceased Selvaraj, who sustained injury in the motor accident on 23.03.2012 and died on 26.06.2012. According to the claimants, after the accident which occurred while Selvaraj was walking along Cuddalore main road near Patel Saw Mill, Ariyankuppam, the bus bearing registration No.PY-01-BC-7227 rash and negligently without any horn or sign, dashed against the deceased in the middle of the road. In the accident, the deceased sustained severe injury and admitted in the hospital. After few days of treatment as inpatient, he was discharged but did not recovery from the accident injury till his death.
3. Attributing the cause of death, the claim petition was filed by the Insurance Company denied the liability and contesting that the claim petition is not maintainable in law, since the death of Selvaraj was not due to road accident. 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.646 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.5309 of 2016 Further, he invited the accident while carelessly crossing the road and therefore, the bus driver cannot be held responsible.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence placed before it, particularly the discharge summary Ex.P.3. dated 23.03.2012 to 26.03.2012 and Ex.P.4 discharge summary dated 12.06.2012 to 21.06.2012 held that there is proximity between the accident and the death. Though, the claimant was discharged from the hospital immediately after treatment for his accident injury. He developed illness subsequently and got admitted in the hospital again and died on 26.06.2012. Taking his age at the time of death at 65 years and income at Rs.5,500/- per month, awarded the total compensation of Rs.4,56,000/-.
5. In this appeal, it is vehemently contended by the Insurance Company that the injury sustained in the road accident is seen from the discharge summary Ex.P.3. It is clear that the injured sustained is only simple injury and his death was not due to the said injury. The subsequent treatment given in the hospital between 12.06.2012 to 21.06.2012 which is reflected in the discharge summary Ex.P.4 has no connection with the accident injury. When there is no basis to infer that the deceased died due to the road accident injury, claim petition is not at all maintainable. 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.646 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.5309 of 2016
6. Further, adverting to the compensation awarded, it is contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the income deduction towards the personal expenditure and multiplier applied are all erroneous and perverse which is palpably indicates the perversity of the Tribunal.
7. The Learned Counsel for the appellant would specifically submit that at the time of death the deceased was already a senior citizen crossed 65 years. The claimants are all adult members of the family, who are not his dependants and therefore, deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenditure is ill logic and improper.
8. On examining of Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 which are discharge summary and death certificate from the deceased, this Court finds that the death has cause due to the accident injury and not otherwise. Though the deceased Selvaraj was discharged from the hospital on 26.03.2012, after being treated for the injury, the CT scan of his brain had disclosed bifrontal subdural hemorrhage after nearly three months, he again got admitted in the hospital complaining discomfort and surgery has been conducted on 14.06.2012 under local anesthesia. He was discharged on 21.06.2012 died on 26.06.2012. Therefore, the claim petition entertained by the tribunal is factually sustainable. 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.646 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.5309 of 2016
9. As far as the quantum of compensation, this Court finds that the notional income of the claimant has been fixed at Rs.5,500/- per month and after deduction 1/4th towards his personal expenditure, the Tribunal has applied multiplier
7. Though, in the previous paragraph of the award, it has been stated that as per Sarala Verma case, the multiplier to be adopted as '5'. In this aspects, the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant deserves acceptance and also taking note of the age of the dependants and the age of the deceased, it is not always the personal expenditure should be based on the number of dependants, but also the age of the claimants, should also be born in mind. Senior Citizen or Super Senior Citizen, who have crossed 60 or 70 years, their dependency upon the family members will be more rather than vice versa, deduction of 1/4th for his personal expenditure in case of 65 years old man when his children are over and above 30 years is not correct. The personal expenditure should be 1/3th rather than 1/4th . Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as below:-
Sl.Nos Compensation under various heads Award passed by the Tribunal
1. Loss of income Rs.2,20,020/-
(Rs.5,500 - 1/3rd = Rs.1,833) Rs.5,500-1,833 x 12 x 5)
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
st
3. Loss of consortium for the 1 claimant Rs.40,000/-
4. Loss of love and affection 2nd to 5th claimants Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.20,000/- x 4)
Total Rs.3,55,020/-
10. The award passed by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.4,56,000/- is 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.646 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.5309 of 2016 modified and reduced to Rs.3,55,020/- with 7.5% from the date of numbering the petition till the date of realisation. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount with interest @ 7.5%, within a period of 8 weeks, from the date of receipt of the award. The award amount with accrued interest shall be apportioned to the claimants 1 to 5 as below:-
(i). 1st claimant = Rs.2,00,000/-
(ii). 2nd to 5th claimants = Rs.1,55,020/- (shared equally)
11. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company has stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the entire award amount has been deposited into the credit of M.C.O.P No.2006 of 2012 and from out of that, the claimants have already withdrawn 50% of it. If it is so, the appellant herein is directed to deposit the balance amount, as per the award modified in this appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly-Allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
19.11.2020
bsm
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order.
Copy To:-
6/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.646 of 2016
& C.M.P.No.5309 of 2016
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1 Additional District Court), Cuddalore.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.646 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.5309 of 2016 Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.
bsm C.M.A.No.198 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.5309 of 2016 19.11.2020 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in