Madras High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. ... vs G.S.Abiramavalli on 18 December, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 11.07.2024
Pronounced on : 18.12.2024
CORAM
JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
AND
JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.3672,3671,3673,9807 and 9808 of 2017
C.M.A(MD)No.932 of 2017
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
Sundaram Towers,
45, 46, Whites Road,
Chennai – 14. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.G.S.Abiramavalli
2.Minor.Aswika
(Represented through her natural guardian
and her mother G.S.Abiramavalli)
Vathsaladevi (Died)
3.M.A.Jaffer Sadique
4.R.Kasthuri
Page 1 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
5.The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Ltd.,
No.7, A.A.Road, Gnanaolivupuram,
Madurai – 16.
6.S.Karpagadevi
7.P.Shanmugapriya ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.04.2016
made in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident
Claims Tribunal/V Additional District Judge, Madurai and allow this
appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.E.Ilango
For R1 – R2 : Mr.B.Ramanathan
For R5 : V.Muthukamatchi
For R3,R4,R6 & R7: No Appearance
C.M.A(MD)No.933 of 2017
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
Sundaram Towers,
45, 46, Whites Road,
Chennai – 14. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.V.Thiruvenkatam ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.M.A.Jaffer Sadique ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
Page 2 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
3.R.Kasthuri ...3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent
4.The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Ltd.,
No.7, A.A.Road, Gnanaolivupuram,
Madurai – 16. ...4th Respondent/4th Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.04.2016
made in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident
Claims Tribunal/V Additional District Judge, Madurai and allow this
appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.E.Ilango
For R1 : Mr.B.Ramanathan
For R2 & R3 : No Appearance
For R4 : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi
C.M.A(MD)No.321 of 2017
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
Sundaram Towers,
45, 46, Whites Road,
Chennai – 14. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.V.Gnanmani
2.B.Rajesh
3.B.Shenbagapriya ...Respondents 1 to 3/Claimants
4.M.A.Jaffer Sadique ...4th Respondent/1st Respondent
Page 3 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
5.R.Kasthuri ...5th Respondent/3rd Respondent
6.The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Ltd.,
No.7, A.A.Road, Gnanaolivupuram,
Madurai – 16. ...6th Respondent/4th Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.04.2016
made in M.C.O.P.No.197 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident
Claims Tribunal/V Additional District Judge, Madurai and allow this
appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.E.Ilango
R1 : Died
For R2 to R5 : No Appearance
For R6 : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi
C.M.A(MD)No.322 of 2017
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
Sundaram Towers,
45, 46, Whites Road,
Chennai – 14. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.R.Prabhakaran ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.M.A.Jaffer Sadique ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
Page 4 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
3.R.Kasthuri ...3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent
4.The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Ltd.,
No.7, A.A.Road, Gnanaolivupuram,
Madurai – 16. ...4th Respondent/4th Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.04.2016
made in M.C.O.P.No.201 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident
Claims Tribunal/V Additional District Judge, Madurai and allow this
appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.E.Ilango
For R4 : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi
For R1 to R3 : No Appearance
C.M.A(MD)No.323 of 2017
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
Sundaram Towers,
45, 46, Whites Road,
Chennai – 14. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.S.V.Sathiyan ...1st Respondent/Claimant
2.M.A.Jaffer Sadique ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
3.R.Kasthuri ...3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent
Page 5 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
4.The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Ltd.,
No.7, A.A.Road, Gnanaolivupuram,
Madurai – 16. ...4th Respondent/4th Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.04.2016
made in M.C.O.P.No.389 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident
Claims Tribunal/V Additional District Judge, Madurai and allow this
appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.E.Ilango
For R4 : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi
For R1 to R3 : No Appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VADAMALAI, J.) These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A(MD)Nos.932, 933, 321, 322 and 323 of 2017 are preferred against the common order, dated 29.04.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.195 of 2010, 200 of 2010, 197 of 2010, 201 of 2010 and 389 of 2010, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/V Additional District Court, Madurai.
Page 6 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
2. The 2nd respondent/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited in M.C.O.P.Nos.195 of 2010, 200 of 2010, 197 of 2010, 201 of 2010 and 389 of 2010, which is the Insurance Company of the bus bearing registration No.TN 59 U 7725, which faced liability to pay compensation for five separate claims made by the claimants of a road accident that took place on 24.08.2008 at around 4.00 p.m. between the bus insured with the 2nd respondent and TATA Indica car bearing registration No.TN 59 AE 6318, is the appellant herein.
3. The respective respondent/petitioner/claimants (dependants of deceased and injured) have filed the respective claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.195 of 2010, 200 of 2010, 197 of 2010, 201 of 2010 and 389 of 2010 against four respondents (owners of lorry and Maruti car and their Insurance Companies).
4. For the sake of convenience, the rank of parties as arrayed in claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.195 of 2010, 200 of 2010, 197 of 2010, 201 of 2010 and 389 of 2010 are adopted hereunder.
Page 7 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
5. The brief facts of the case:
On the fateful day 24.08.2008, the deceased Murugapandian @ Murugapandi was driving the TATA Indica car bearing registration number TN 59 AE 6318 from Theni to Madurai along with his friends deceased Balakrishnan and the injured Prabaharan, Sathyan and Thiruvenkatam, by following traffic rules at a moderate speed. At 4.00 p.m., when the car was coming west to east at curve road in front of Vadikaruppa Kovil, Vadikovilpatti village, the 1st respondent’s bus bearing registration number TN 59 U 7725 driven by its driver from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules, dashed against the TATA Indica car and the car was dragged from the left side to right side to a distance of 150 feet. Due to impact, the deceased/driver Murugapandi sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. The deceased Balakrishnan sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the way to hospital. The injured Prabaharan, Sathyan and Thiruvenkatam sustained grievous injuries all over the body. F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.142 of 2008, U/s.279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC, against the bus driver by the Usilampatti Town Police Station. The 1st respondent is the owner of the bus Page 8 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 bearing registration number TN 59 U 7725 and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the bus. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the TATA Indica car bearing registration number TN 59 AE 6318 and the 4th respondent is the insurer of the car.
(i) The wife and the daughter of the deceased Murugapandi have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2010 claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- stating that the deceased Murugapandi was 30 years old and was working as an Assistant in LIC, Madurai with a salary of Rs.15,000/-
p.m. at the time of accident.
(ii) The wife and the minor son of the deceased Balakrishan have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.197 of 2010 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- stating that the deceased Balakrishnan was 58 years old and was working as an Account Supervisor in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai with salary of Rs.21,500/- p.m. at the time of accident.
(iii) The injured Thiruvenkatam has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2010 claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- stating Page 9 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 that he was aged 30 years and was working as a Foreman in M/s.Quick Silver, Vandiyur, Madurai and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. and incurred huge expenses towards medical treatment and also incurred a loss of earning capacity etc.,
(iv) The injured Prabaharan has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.201 of 2010 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- stating that he was aged 34 years old and was working as an Account Supervisor in TNEB, Madurai and was earning Rs.17,000/- p.m. and incurred huge expenses towards medical treatment and also incurred a loss of earning capacity etc.,
(v) The injured Sathyan has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No. 389 of 2010 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- stating that he was aged 37 years old and was working as an Account Supervisor in TNEB, Madurai and was earning Rs.17,000/- p.m. and incurred huge expenses towards medical treatment and also incurred a loss of earning capacity etc., Page 10 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
6. The 2nd respondent/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited objected the claim petitions that the accident was taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the TATA Indica car, who had driven the car at high speed on the curved road at the occurrence spot, lost control of the vehicle, came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the 1st respondent’s bus. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, the 1st respondent and his insurer the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company are not liable to pay any compensation.
7.The 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company contended that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent’s bus TN 59 U 7725 and so, the insurer of the said bus is liable to pay compensation.
8. Respondents 1 and 3, the owner of the bus and car, respectively remained ex-parte.
Page 11 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
9. All the five claim petitions were tried jointly before the Tribunal. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. Petitioners examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked 58 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.58. On the respondents' side four witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W.4 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7 were marked.
10. After hearing both sides and after considering the evidences, the Tribunal has held that the accident was happened due to negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent and awarded compensation to the petitioners/claimants directing the 2nd respondent/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to pay compensation and the details are as below:-
M.C.O.P. Compensation
Petitioners/Claimants
Nos. Awarded
195 of 2010 LRs of deceased Murugapandi Rs.29,13,172/- 197 of 2010 LRs of deceased Balakrishnan Rs.18,83,396/- 200 of 2010 Injured Thiruvenkatam Rs.25,45,991/- 201 of 2010 Injured Prabhakaran Rs. 2,81,487/-
389 of 2010 Injured Sathyan Rs. 1,72,303/-
Page 12 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
11. Aggrieved by the said award, the 2nd respondent/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., has preferred these batch of appeals against the award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.195, 197, 200, 201 and 389 of 2010 and the details are:
M.C.O.P.Nos. CMA(MD)Nos.
195/2010 932/2017200/2010 933/2017 197/2010 321/2017 201/2010 322/2017 389/2010 323/2017
12. The claimants have not preferred any Cross Objection in any one of the above appeals.
13. Heard both sides and perused the records in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., has contended that the 1st respondent’s bus was driven by its driver at a moderate speed from Page 13 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 Madurai to Theni, while so, the 3rd respondent’s car was driven by the deceased Murugapandi in a rash and negligent manner on the curved road from Theni to Madurai i.e., the accident place, crossed the middle of the road and dashed against the bus. The appellant/Insurance Company marked Ex.R.1 - Rough Sketch, which clearly shows the accident place marked at the right side corner of the road of the plying car. That itself shows that the accident was taken place due to the negligence of the car driver. Though F.I.R. was registered against the bus driver, he was acquitted from the criminal case as the negligence on his part was not proved, to prove the same, a copy of the judgment was marked as Ex.R.2. The claimant’s case that the car was dragged by the bus to the distance of 150 feet, but there is no tyre mark found in the road and no witness was examined to establish the same. The Tribunal mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1., who is the co-passenger of the car and also the claimant in his claim petition and fixed negligence on the driver of the bus. P.W.1 is an interested witness. No other witness was examined to support the claimants’ case. The appellant/Insurance Company has examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and a passenger of the bus as R.W.2. Both R.W.1 and R.W.2 clearly Page 14 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 deposed that the accident happened only due to the driver of the TATA Indica car. But, the Tribunal ignored the evidence of R.W.1 and RW2 and concluded that the accident happened due to negligence on the part of the bus driver. So, the finding has to be set aside.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants and the 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence of witnesses of both sides and correctly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent's bus, against whom F.I.R. was registered regarding the accident. The 1st respondent’s bus driver has not given any contra complaint. The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 are not reliable. R.W.2 is not a passenger in the offending bus and he has not given any statement before the police at that time. R.W.2 was only called on by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
16. On hearing both sides, the appellant/Insurance Company mainly relied on the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 in support of its case that the Page 15 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 driver of the car crossed the midline at the curve road and dashed against the 1st respondent’s bus. The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 have been carefully perused. On perusal of the evidence of R.W.1, who categorically deposed in his cross examination as follows:-
“tpgj;J rk;ge;jkhf ehd; g[fhh;
bfhLf;ftpy;iy. rk;gt ,lj;jpy; ,Ue;j xU jdp
egh; bfhLj;j g[fhhpd; nghpy; vd; kPJ tHf;F
gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. vd; kPJ bfhLf;fg;gl;l g[fhh; bgha;ahd g[fhh; vd;W kWj;J ehd; fhty; epiyaj;jpw;nfh my;yJ fhty; cah;
mjpfhhpf;nfh g[fhh; bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why;
rhpjhd;. fhiu Xl;o te;j oiuth;jhd; tpgj;Jf;F fhuzk; vd;W brhy;yp fhg;gPL epWtdj;jpw;F vGj;J:Kykhf ehd; g[fhh; mDg;gtpy;iy vd;why;
rhpjhd;…....v]; tisit fle;J fhh; tutpy;iy.
v]; tistpy;jhd; tpgj;J ele;jJ…..” The above clear evidence of the driver of the 1 st respondent's bus disproves the stand of the appellant / Insurance Company that the driver of the car crossed the midline, came wrong side of the road and dashed against the bus. R.W.1. clearly admitted that the driver of the car had not crossed the curve. Further, the evidence of R.W.2, the alleged passenger of the 1st respondent's bus has deposed in his cross examination as follows: Page 16 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 “......ehd; vk;Vnf epWtd ngU:e;J rk;gt njjpad;W gazk; bra;jjw;F rhd;whf Mtzk;
VjhtJ itj;Js;nsdh vd;why; ,y;iy. ehd;
fy;Y}hpapy; gof;Fk; nghJ flr;rnde;jypy; ,Ue;J jpdKk; ngUe;jpy; gazk; bra;njdh vd;why; ,y;iy. +h];lypy; jq;fpapUe;njd;.
rk;gtk; ele;j md;W fy;Y}hp tpLKiw
vd;why; ,y;iy. ehd; gpuh$f;l; rk;ge;jkhf
vd;Dila ez;giu ghh;f;f brd;wpUe;njd;…,U
thfdKk; nkhjpa ,lj;jpnyna mg;gona epd;W
tpl;ljh vd;why; nkhjpa ,lj;jpnyna epd;W
tpl;lJ…......crpyk;gl;o jhYfh nghyprhh;
rk;gt ,lj;jpy; itj;J khiy 4.00 kzpf;F
tprhhpj;jhh;. thf;FK:yk; thq;ftpy;iy. ehd;
ngUe;J epWtdj;jplk; ehd; rk;gt ngUe;jpy; gazk; bra;jijnah tpgj;ij ghh;j;jijnah gw;wp ehd;
Twtpy;iy. mJ nghy; vd;id rhl;rp brhy;y
miHj;j 2k; vjph;kDjhuhplk; mt;thW ehd;
bjhpag;gLj;jtpy;iy. vd;id ,e;j tpgj;J
rk;ge;jkhd ,e;j tHf;fpy; rhl;rpahf nrh;;f;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;....” The above evidence of R.W.2 clearly shows that he has not travelled in the offending bus as he stated that both the vehicle got halted at the accident spot, though he claimed that he saw the accident, he has not stated anything about the accident to the police or bus owner or anybody else and that he Page 17 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 has not examined by the police regarding the accident. Hence, the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 would not support the version of the appellant/Insurance Company.
17. Another contention raised by the appellant/Insurance Company is that the car was dragged to 150 feet and there is no evidence of tyre marking. It is a settled proposition of law that when two vehicles are involved in an accident, the bigger one is held responsible because of its weight dragged the smaller one. That is why in Ex.R.1, the occurrence spot is shown as the left edge of the road.
18. Another contention is that the driver of the 1st respondent’s bus was acquitted in the case registered in this accident. It is a settled proposition of law that a criminal Court’s judgment acquitting a driver is not relevant in a case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the same would not bind the claim. The acquittal of the driver in a criminal case would not infer that there was no negligence on his part in motor accident cases. Each and every case has to be dealt with relying on the evidences Page 18 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 adduced. It is already reiterated in various cases that the judgments of the criminal Court are neither binding on the civil Court/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal nor a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is, indeed, trite to state that while the decision of a civil Court is binding on the criminal Court, the finding of the criminal Court should not influence the decision of the Tribunal. The strict principles of proof in a criminal case will not be applicable in a claim for compensation and the standard to be followed in such claims is one of preponderance of probability rather than one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Before the Tribunal prima facie material to prove negligence is sufficient. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident happened due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the 1st respondent’s bus is legally correct and the same does not warrant any interference.
19. Next, the appellant/Insurance Company challenged the quantum of compensation under various heads by the Tribunal in all these five claim petitions.
Page 19 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
20. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that in respect of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2010, the deceased Murugapandi was aged 30 years and was working as an Assistant in LIC and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. In respect of M.C.O.P.No. 197 of 2010, the deceased Balakrishnan was aged 56 years and was working as an Account Supervisor in TNEB and was getting Rs.21,500/- p.m. But the Tribunal erred in took the gross salary of the deceased at Rs.17,972/- and Rs.27,853/- respectively. Moreover, the deceased would work till 58 years and thereafter, he would receive pension, so, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the split multiplier.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has correctly fixed the income and awarded other compensation under various heads as per the settled proposition as laid down in Sarla Verma Case and the appeals may be dismissed. The learned counsel relied on citations reported in [2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC) (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Others) and 2024 (1) Page 20 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 TNMAC 23 (DB) (Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. V.Vimala Devi & Ors.]
22. Though the petitioners/claimants have not preferred Cross Appeals, calculation memos were filed regarding compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagappa /v/ Gurudhayal Singh reported in 2003(2) SCC 274, held that even in appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the award passed by the Tribunal can be examined and compensation can be enhanced or decreased.
23. Before proceeding to analyse the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads to the dependents of the deceased, we will decide the question of split multiplier. Admittedly, the deceased Murugapandi and Balakrishnan were permanent government employees having permanent income and aged 30 years and 56 years respectively at the time of the accident. So, in the absence of any specific reason and record placed by the 2nd respondent, the Tribunal cannot apply split multiplier in routine course. Furthermore, the Division Bench of this Court in its order in Page 21 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 C.M.A(MD)No.3667 of 2014, dated 05.06.2018 held that split multiplier cannot be adopted and only the completed age of the deceased should be taken into consideration for multiplier, following the decision held in C.M.A.No.661 of 2016, dated 31.03.2016, which is extracted hereunder:
“In this regard, it would be appropriate to place reference in the decision of a Division Bench in C.M.A.No.661 of 2016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Aanandhanayaki and others) dated 31.03.2016, wherein it has been held in an identical situation that only the completed age of the deceased should be taken into consideration.” Another decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in CDJ 2016 MHC 6131 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Venkateswari & Others), wherein also split multiplier was not adopted.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent case held that split multiplier is erroneous in accidental cases. The Division Bench of the Page 22 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Civil Appeal No.1269 of 2022, dated 10.02.2022, wherein it is held in paragraph Nos.8 to 11 as follows:
''8. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General has referred to certain orders of the High Courts reported as Uma Shankar & Ors. v. Revathy Vadivel & Ors. (2014 SCC Online Madras 846), Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Ors. v. Sh. Kitab Singh & Ors. (2011 SCC OnLine Del 2843) and Union of India &Ors. v. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar & Ors.(2000 SCC OnLine Kar 406) to support the applicability of split multiplier i.e., multiplier upto the date of retirement and another multiplier after retirement.
9. The judgments referred to by Mr. Tiwari are prior to the enunciation of law by this Court in Pranay Sethi. Therefore, such judgments no longer can be said to be good law as suitable multiplier is to be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased in terms of para 59.7 of the judgment in Pranay Sethi.
10. A three-Judge Bench in an order reported as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.Page 23 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 Satinder Kaur alia Satwinder Kaur & Ors.
82020 SCC OnLine SC 410 has applied the multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased even if he was a bachelor. The Court held as under:
“48. Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud, (2019) 5 SCC 554 traced out the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the dependants. In the case of the death of a married person, it is an accepted norm that the age of the deceased would be taken into account. Thus, even in the case of a bachelor, the same principle must be applied.”
11.Thus, we find that the method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, affirming the judgment in Sarla Verma. Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of Page 24 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma approved by this Court in Pranay Sethi.''
25. Thus it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for determination of compensation in accident cases multiplier should be taken only on completed age of the deceased. If there is any inconsistency in selection of multiplier, the court should follow the decision of Sarla Verma case. Therefore, multiplier should be adopted as per decision in the case of Sarla Verma case as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari. In our opinion, the Tribunal has correctly adopted the multiplier as '17' and '9' respectively and there is no need to interfere in it. Compensation awarded under various heads by the Tribunal:-
C.M.A(MD)No.932 of 2017 (M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2010)
26. It is admitted that the deceased Murugapandian @ Murugapandi was working as an Assistant in LIC and he was earning Rs.17,972/- p.m. as gross salary as evidenced from Ex.P.14 - Salary Certificate. He was a permanent employee. These facts could not be denied Page 25 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 by the appellant. It is a settled principle that gross salary has to be taken into account for fixing compensation in motor accident cases. Moreover, the cost of inflation of index is increasing year by year. So, the said Rs.17,972/- is to be taken as monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal has deducted 10% towards income tax in view of the decision reported in [2014 (1) TNMAC 647 (SC) (Manasvi Jain vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., & Ors.] and 2014 (2) TNMAC 608 (SC) (Yerrammal & Ors. vs. Krishnamurthy & Another]. Both sides have also accepted the same. So, the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.16,175/- [Rs.17,972/- minus Rs.1,797/- (10% of Rs.17,972/-)] is held as correct.
27. The deceased was a salaried man, who was getting permanent monthly income. The age of the deceased was 30 years, which is not disputed. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it has added 30% towards future prospectus. As per the settled proposition of law in Pranay Sethi case reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), 50% has to be added towards future prospectus of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in adding 30% to future prospectus and it should be added 50% for Page 26 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 future prospectus, considering the age of the deceased was 30, i.e. below 40 years. By adding 50%, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.24,263/- p.m. (Rs.16,175 + Rs.8,088/- (50% of Rs.16,175/-). Considering the age of the deceased as 30 years, the multiplier is '17' according to the settled principle in Sarla Verma Case. Hence, the Tribunal has correctly adopted the multiplier '17'. Therefore, the loss of income due to the death of the deceased Murugapandian @ Murugapandi would come to Rs.24,263/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.49,49,652/-
28. The deceased was a family man consisting wife, minor child and mother at the time of the accident and hence, as per the settled proposition in Sarla Verma case and Pranay Sethi Case, 1/3rd of income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, Rs.16,49,884/- (1/3rd of Rs.49,49,652/-) is to be deducted towards personal expenses. After deducting the personal expenses, the loss of income of the deceased dependants arrived at Rs.32,99,768/-, rounded to Rs.32,99,800/-. Page 27 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
29. While considering the loss of consortium, the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1 st petitioner and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the 2nd minor petitioner. As per dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi Case (2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), each dependents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium and also Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and there should be enhancement of 10% in a span of three years. Though the accident took place in the year 2008, the award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2016 and still the litigation is continued upto before this Court. Hence, considering the year of the award, 20% should be added in awarding compensation towards love and affection. There would not be any dispute by the appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, the petitioners/claimants being the wife, and minor child of the deceased are entitled to Rs.48,400/- each towards consortium and so, the lumpsum consortium of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners and also Rs.25,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner as awarded by the Tribunal is modified. In view of Pranay Sethi case, the Page 28 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 claimants are entitled Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and 10% to be added for every three years.
30. Thus, this Court holds that the total compensation payable to the appellants/petitioners/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2010 as follows:
Sl. Amount awarded
Description
No. by this Court
1. Loss of Income (Rs.24,263/- x 12 x 17 = Rs. 32,99,800/-
Rs.49,49,652/-
less 1/3rd Rs.16,49,884/- towards personal
expenses = Rs.32,99,768/-, rounded to
Rs.32,99,800/-
2. Spousal Consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs. 48,400/-
being wife of the deceased
3. Filial Consortium to the 2nd minor petitioner Rs. 48,400/-
(being child of the deceased)
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Total Rs. 34,32,900/-
C.M.A(MD)No.321 of 2017 (M.C.O.P.No.197 of 2010)
31. It is admitted that the deceased Balakrishnan was working as an Accounts Supervisor in TNEB and was getting Rs.27,853/- p.m. as gross salary as evidenced from Ex.P.10 - Salary Certificate. He was a permanent Page 29 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 employee. These facts could not be denied by the appellant. It is a settled principle that gross salary has to be taken into account for fixing compensation in motor accident cases. Moreover, the cost of inflation of index is increasing year by year. So, the said Rs.27,853/- is to be taken as monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal has deducted 10% towards income tax in view of the decision reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 647 (SC) and 2014 (2) TNMAC 608 (SC) cited supra. Both sides have also accepted the same. So, the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.25,068/- (Rs.27,853/- minus Rs.2,785/- (10% of Rs.27,853/-) is held as correct.
32. The deceased was a salaried man, who was getting permanent monthly income. The age of the deceased was 56 years, which is not disputed. The learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has not added any future prospectus, which was objected by the appellant/Insurance Company on the grounds that the deceased completed 56 years and was going to retire at the age of 58 years and had no opportunity for further promotion. In view of the settled proposition of law in Pranay Sethi case reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), 10% has to Page 30 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 be added towards future prospectus of the deceased, who was between the age 50 to 60 years and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in not adding any future prospectus and it should be added 10% for future prospectus, considering the age of the deceased was 56. By adding 10%, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.27,575/- p.m. (Rs.25,068/- + Rs.2,507/- (10% of Rs.25,068/-). Considering the age of the deceased as 56 years, the multiplier is '9' according to the settled principle in Sarla Verma Case. Hence, the Tribunal has correctly adopted the multiplier '9'. Therefore, the loss of income due to the death of the deceased Balakrishnan would come to Rs.27,575/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.29,78,100/-
33. The deceased was a family man consisting wife and two children at the time of the accident and hence, as per the settled proposition in Sarla Verma case and Pranay Sethi Case, 1/3rd of income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, Rs.9,92,700/- (1/3rd of Rs.29,78,100/-) is to be deducted towards personal expenses. After deducting the personal expenses, the loss of income of the deceased dependants arrived at Rs.19,85,400/-.
Page 31 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
34. While considering the loss of consortium, the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.25,000/- to the 1st petitioner and also Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of love and affection to the minor petitioners. As per dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi Case (2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), each dependents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium and also Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and there should be enhancement of 10% in a span of three years. Though the accident took place in the year 2008, the award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2016 and still the litigation is continued upto before this Court. Hence, considering the year of the award, 20% should be added in awarding compensation towards love and affection. There would not be any dispute by the appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, the petitioners/claimants being the wife, and children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.48,400/- each towards consortium and so, the lumpsum consortium of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners and also Rs.25,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner as awarded by the Tribunal is modified. In view of Pranay Sethi case, the claimants are entitled Rs.15,000/- each Page 32 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and 10% to be added for every three years.
35. Thus, this Court holds that the total compensation payable to the appellants/petitioners/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.197 of 2010 as follows:
Sl. Amount awarded
Description
No. by this Court
1. Loss of Income (Rs.27,575/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.19,85,400/-
Rs.29,78,100/-)
less 1/3rd Rs.9,92,700/- towards personal
expenses = Rs.19,85,400/-
2. Spousal Consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs. 48,400/-
being wife of the deceased
3. Filial Consortium for petitioners 2 and 3 Rs. 96,800/-
(being children of the deceased)
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Total Rs.21,66,900/-
C.M.A(MD)No.933 of 2017 (M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2010)
36. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company argued that the injured in this case namely Thiruvenkadam has suffered from only fractures and injuries and the same cannot be treated as Page 33 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 permanent disablement. In this case, the permanent disability assessed at 60% is contrary to law, because as per the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, does not contemplate any permanent disablement for fracture. The Tribunal fixed the salary at Rs.10,025/- and also added 25% as overtime wages without any documents. Further, the Tribunal erred in adding Rs.625/- towards bonus and also erred in adding 50% towards future prospectus.
37. The learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant has submitted that the petitioner could not move like a normal man, his movement of right hip joint, both knee joints and the right elbow joint are painful. The injured was working as Foreman, he could not be able to squat and could not do his work and the medical officer assessed 60% permanent disability. It is a settled principle that notional income can be fixed at Rs.6,500/- in the absence of any salary certificate. But, in this case, the petitioner was working as Foreman in a factory and his basic salary was Rs.7,500/-, so the income fixed by the Tribunal is correct.
Page 34 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
38. On perusal of the records, the petitioner sustained fractures and multiple injuries as seen from Ex.P.19 - Wound Certificate. P.W.7 - Dr.P.Shanmugam analysed the injuries sustained by the petitioner and has issued Ex.P.38 - Disability Certificate determining the disability as 60%. The appellant/Insurance Company has not taken any steps to refer the petitioner to the medical board to reassess the disability. So, the disability is fixed as 60% by the Tribunal is correct.
39. In this case, the petitioner was aged 34 years and he has completed ITI course. It is not in dispute. He was working as Foreman and was earning income. As per Ex.P.47 - Pay Slip, the petitioner received gross salary of Rs.10,314/- for June 2008, Rs.9,438/- for July 2008 and Rs.8,625/- for August 2008 including overtime wages. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was getting an additional amount for his overtime work, which was also corroborated by P.W.11 - Factory Manager. P.W.11 further deposed that their company was giving Rs.625/- p.m. towards bonus. There is no contra evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed Rs.10,025/- p.m. as income of the petitioner cannot be held as incorrect. Page 35 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 This Court agrees with the income of the petitioner fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.10,025/- p.m.
40. The Tribunal added 50% towards future prospectus to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a permanent employee. As per the records, he was dismissed due to the injuries sustained in the accident, which is revealed from Ex.P.37 dismissal order. So, the petitioner was not a permanent employee. In view of the settled proposition of law in Sarla Verma case and Pranay Sethi case, 40% has to be added towards future prospectus of the petitioner, who was aged 30 years and who was not a permanent employee and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in adding future prospectus as 50% and it should be reduced as 40% for future prospectus. By adding 40%, the income of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.14,035/- p.m. [(Rs.10,025/- + Rs.4,010/- (40% of Rs.10,025/-)].
41. The Hon’be Supreme Court in its verdict reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 968 (Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr.) has held that the process of determining Page 36 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 compensation by the Court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so the claims of injury and disability point out ‘money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered.’ and appreciated the fixation of compensation applying multiplier on notional income. Therefore, considering the age of 34 years, the multiplier '16' fixed by the Tribunal is correct. Hence, the loss of income to the petitioner would come to Rs.14,035/- x 12 x 16 x 60/100 = Rs.16,16,832/-.
42. The petitioner took treatment from 24.08.2008 to 19.09.2008 in Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai and he incurred medical expenses as could be seen from Ex.P.27 to Ex.P.57. He also underwent prolonged treatment and he may need future medical treatment. It is needless to say that a person with permanent disability, that too due to injuries sustained in a road accident, would experience very hard in maintaining his day to day life, than an ordinary normal man. That is different in case of death. The compensation under various heads in this case is just compensation and the same need not be interfered.
Page 37 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
43. Therefore, this Court modifies the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and refixes the compensation as follows:-
S. Amount
No Description awarded by this
Court
1. Loss of earning power upon permanent Rs.16,16,832/- disability 60% (Rs.14,035/- x 12 x 16 x 60/100 = Rs.16,16,832/-)
2. Medical Bills Rs.2,93,229/-
3. Nourishment and Attendant Charge Rs. 60,000/-
4. Transportation Rs. 10,000/-
5. Damage to Cloths Rs. 500/-
6. Other Medical Expenses Rs.1,00,000/-
7. Pain and suffering and disfigurement Rs.1,00,000/-
8. Loss of Amenities, Prospectus and Rs.1,00,000/- Expectation of Life
9. Mental Agony Rs. 50,000/-
10. Loss of Marriage Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs.24,30,561/-
C.M.A(MD)Nos.322 and 323 of 2017 (M.C.O.P.Nos.201 of 2010 and 389 of 2010)
44. In these two cases, on both sides, there are no rival arguments in respect of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. So, there is no necessity to discuss the same.
Page 38 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
45. In the result,
(i) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2010 is enhanced from Rs.29,13,172/- to Rs.34,32,900/- (Rupees Thirty four lakhs thirty two thousand and nine hundred only). With the above modification, the C.M.A(MD)No.932 of 2017 is dismissed. The first claimant/wife of the deceased, is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.15,32,900/-, the 2nd minor petitioner/claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- and the 5th respondent is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the 6th respondent is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interests and costs and they are directed to pay required Court for excess compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The share amount of minor 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent herein shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank till she attains majority and the first petitioner/1st respondent herein is entitled to receive interest payable on the said deposit once in three months.
Page 39 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
(ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2010 is reduced from 25,45,991/- to Rs.24,30,561/- (Rupees Twenty four lakhs thirty thousand and five hundred and sixty one only). With the above modification, the C.M.A(MD)No.933 of 2017 is partly allowed. The petitioner/claimant in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2010 is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.24,30,561/- with proportionate interests and costs.
(iii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.197 of 2010 is enhanced from Rs.18,83,396/- to Rs.21,66,900/- (Rupees Twenty one lakhs sixty six thousand and nine hundred only). With the above modification, the C.M.A(MD)No.321 of 2017 is dismissed. The first claimant/wife of the deceased, is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.10,66,900/-, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- each with proportionate interests and costs and they are directed to pay required Court for excess compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Page 40 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
(iv) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A(MD)Nos.322 of 2017 and 323 of 2017 are dismissed. The common order, dated 29.04.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.201 of 2010 and 389 of 2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/V Additional District Court, Madurai is confirmed.
(v) The appellant/2nd respondent/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount, if already not deposited, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.Nos.195 of 2010, 197 of 2010, 200 of 2010, 201 of 2010 and 389 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/V Additional District Court, Madurai respectively within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The excess amount, if any, already deposited by the Appellant /Insurance Company, shall be refunded to the appellant.
(vi) On such deposit being made by the appellant/2nd respondent/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, the Page 41 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 respective claimants/petitioners herein (except minor petitioner/claimant) are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount as apportioned by this Court with proportionate interest and cost by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn if any. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(N.S.S.,J.) (P.V.M.,J.)
18.12.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
VSD
To
1.The Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal / V Additional District Judge, Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page 42 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 N.SESHASAYEE, J.
AND P.VADAMALAI. J.
VSD Pre-Delivery Judgment made in C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.3672,3671,3673,9807 and 9808 of 2017 18.12.2024 Page 43 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis