Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

R. Subbiah, J The Insurance Company has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1635 of 2013 questioning the correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2012 made in MCOP No. 370 of 2002 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Ranipet.

2. The claimants in MCOP No. 370 of 2002 have filed Cross Objection No.1 of 2008 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded in the Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2012 made in MCOP No. 370 of 2002 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Ranipet.

3. As the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection are inter-connected with each other and arise out of the same Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2012 made in MCOP No. 370 of 2002 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Ranipet, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common Judgment.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross-Objection are referred to as per their litigative status in C.M.A. No. 1635 of 2013

15. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants also invited the attention of this Court to Exs. P15 and P16 wherein certain contractual works were awarded in favour of the deceased by the Commissioner, Sholingur Municipality and the Chief Officer  Engineering (Village Roads), Chengalpatrtu. Reference was also made to solvency certificate issued in favour of the deceased by the Tahsildar, Ranipet under Ex.P17 to show that the deceased was resourceful enough to offer solvency even to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs approximately. Further, the learned counsel placed reliance on Exs. P18 to 20, sale deeds in the name of the deceased in respect of various lands by engaging himself in real estate business. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on Exs. P47 and P48 to show that the annual turnover in respect of the wine shop business carried on by the deceased for the assessment year 1998 and 2000 was Rs.2,95,37,949/- and Rs.2,60,91,936/- respectively. It was specifically contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that proceedings were initiated against the deceased by filing O.A. No. 126 of 2004 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, by the Indian Bank under the SARFAESI Act. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the legal heirs of the deceased agreed to settle the entire dues and accordingly, the entire due amount of Rs.56,23,000/- payable to the bank was settled by the respondents under Ex.P51 by selling certain properties which stood in the name of the deceased pursuant to which the Indian Bank released the documents in respect of the mortgaged property and the Original Application was also disposed of on 21.06.2007 recording the aforesaid one time settlement effected between the bank and the respondents herein. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, the deceased was a leading businessman and he had engaged more than 100 workers in order to carry on various business. However, after the death of the deceased, more than 32 business ventures carried run by the deceased were closed and the agricultural lands measuring an extent of 36.76 acres were sold for a meagre amount to clear the debts due to Indian Bank. Above all, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per Ex.P47, the annual assessment of income of the deceased for the year 1999 was Rs.2,96,37,949/- being the turn over from Pavai Traders and Pavai Wines. For the year 2000, as per Ex.P48, his annual income was Rs.2,60,91,936/- being the tuirn over from Pavai Traders and Pavai Wines. Therefore, on the basis of the above documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month as income of the deceased instead of fixing a sum of Rs.4,46,790.55 as yearly income of the deceased. Therefore, according to the counsel for the claimants the Tribunal failed to properly apprecite the documentary evidence filed on behalf of the claimants to prove the various business carried on by the deceased and non-consideration of the same warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the claimants prayed for allowing the Cross Objection filed by the claimants.

Loss of income : Rs.32,50,000.00 Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of consortium to 1st claimant : Rs. 40,000.00 Loss of love and affection (Rs.10,000 X 5) : Rs. 50,000.00
------------------------ 
		Total					Rs.33,55,000.00

		`					-----------------------
23. In the result, CMA No. 1635 of 2013 filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is partly allowed by modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2012 made in MCOP No. 370 of 2002 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Ranipet reducing the compensation amount payable to the claimants from Rs.59,04,000.00 to Rs.33,55,000/- with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. This amount of Rs.33,55,000/- is directed to be deposited by the appellant/insurance company within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment with accrued interest to the credit of MCOP No. 370 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Ranipet.