Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Deivanai

Madras HC15 Oct 2014CMA/12/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant Insurance Company appealed against the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the death of a family member. The Division Bench, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions regarding income determination and recovery from vehicle owners, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal's award of Rs. 6,66,000. Liberty was granted for future recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; judgment of Tribunal confirmed; Liberty granted to Appellant to initiate execution proceedings for recovery.

The Branch Manager Vs Deivanai — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.10.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

C.M.A. No. 12 of 2012 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2012 & 1 of 2014

¶6

The Branch Manager, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Vigneswara Building, 277, Pudukottai Road, Trichy

¶7

...Appellant/II Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Tmt. Deivanai 2. Thiru. Vinothkumar 3. Minor. Ashokkumar rep. By N.F & mother Deivanai ...Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioner 1 to 3

¶10

Thiru K. Durai ...4th Respondent/1st Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V. Act as against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2011 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 175 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Krishnagiri District.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.J. Chandran For Respondents : Mr.Mukund R. Pandian for R1 & R2 & R3 R3 rep. by R1 No appearance for R4

¶13

The Insurance Company has come forward with the aforesaid appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2011 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 175 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri District.

¶16

Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 175 of 2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Krishnagiri, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of death of S. Raji, the husband of the 1^st respondent herein and the father of respondents 2 and 3, in an accident that took place on 15.03.2008. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.6,66,000/-, at the first instance and thereafter, to recover the same from the 4^th respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Insurance Company has come forward with the present appeal.

¶17

According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive and that the Tribunal ought to have noticed that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. It is also contended that the driving licence in respect of TVS Star Motor Cycle was not produced by the owner of the vehicle and hence, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the owner alone. That apart, according to the appellant, the Tribunal was wrong in determining the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- in the absence of any income tax return.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶19

claimants/respondents 1 to 3 submitted that income tax returns of the deceased were produced and in view of the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) and 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 (SC) (Syed Sadiq V. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.), the monthly income arrived at by the Tribunal was perfectly correct.

¶20

5. Heard both sides.

¶21

In view of the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court, mentioned supra, which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 629 (DB) (Jaya and Others V.S. Selvaraju and Others) in which I was also a party, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the same is confirmed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the

¶22

Insurance Company to recover from the owner/driver of the vehicle by filing necessary execution petition, in terms of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2004 (2) CTC 464 (SC) (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Shri Nanjappan and Others).

¶23

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount deposited by the

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

Insurance Company pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 12.01.2012. If the award amount has not been already deposited, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so as to enable the claimants to withdraw the same. Connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

¶32