Insurance Company appealed the Tribunal's compensation quantum. The Court held, considering other awards, that the total compensation was not on the higher side, dismissing the appeal and directing payment.
Appeal dismissed; Insurance Company directed to deposit award amount with interest and costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated :21.07.2014
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH
C.M.A.No.1730 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 115, Third Avenue, Roundana, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.
..Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.V.Amulu
2.Minor V.Nirosha 3.Minor V.Saranya 4.Minor V.Hemachandran 5.K.Saroja ..1 to 5 Respondent/Claimants 6.R.Shabitha ..6th Respondents/1st Respondent
(Minors R2 to R4 represented by their
mother and next friend 1st respondent)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.2747 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthappan (For R1 to R5)
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court), Chennai, in and by award dated 20.10.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.2747 of 2008.
2.Since the present appeal has been filed only challenging the quantum of compensation, I am not dealing with the other aspects of the award passed by the Tribunal.
3.The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants before the Tribunal. The 1st respondent herein is the wife, respondents 2 & 3 are the daughters, 4th respondent is the son and 5th respondent is the mother of the deceased Vajravelu, respectively.
4.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5.So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased Vajravelu was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as a driver. In order to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the driving licence of the deceased was marked as Ex.P.6 and the salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased was marked as Ex.P.7. As the claimants have not produced any other document to corroborate the evidence of P.W.3, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, though it was claimed by the claimants as Rs.15,000/-.
6.According to the Insurance Company, when no tangible evidence is produced by the claimant to prove the income earned by the deceased, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly income of the deceased.
7.But, on a perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal has awarded only a meager sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection to the children, which is extremely on the lessor side. Further, no compensation has been awarded for the loss of love and affection to the mother. When that being so, there is no need to reduce the compensation amount. Further, the sum of Rs.8,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of income to the claimants cannot be said to be on the higher side.
8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to make an inference with the award passed by the Tribunal. Under such circumstance, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, if not deposited so far, to the credit of the above said MCOP, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents 1 & 5 viz., wife and mother of the deceased respectively, are permitted to withdraw their share amount, as apportioned by the Tribunal. The shares of the minors, respondent 2 to 4 are directed to be deposited in any one of the nationalised banks till they attain majority and the 1st respondent herein/their mother is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon, once in three months.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
Dated: 27.08.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Presiding Judge,
Small Causes Court,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.S.Arunkumar, Advocate,SR.32344.
+1 cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate,SR.32242.
ku(co)
krd 8/9
C.M.A.No.1730 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal committed an error in fixing the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 6,000 despite the claimants' assertion of Rs. 15,000.
Whether the compensation awarded for loss of dependency needs to be reduced based on the income quantum.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
V.Amulu
Minor V.Nirosha
Minor V.Saranya
Minor V.Hemachandran
K.Saroja
R.Subbiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
