Dismissed

M/S Shriram General v. N.Manoharan

Madras HC14 Jul 2014CMA/2439/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's compensation award. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the tribunal's low income estimate negated the need for a mandatory 50% personal expense deduction, and the quantum was reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's award of Rs. 4,33,000 was upheld.

M/S Shriram General Vs N.Manoharan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :14.07.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

C.M.A.No.2439 of 2013

¶6

M/s.Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. Mettur, Mettur Taluk Salem .. Appellant / 3rd Respondent -vs1. N.Manoharan 2. Amudha .. Respondents 1 and 2/petitioners 3. A.C.Nallathambi 4. N.Saravanan (Respondents 3 & 4 set exparte in lower court) .. Respondent Nos.3 &4/Respondents 1&2

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.6.2012 made in MCOP No.162/2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Erode

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam For Respondents : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan for R1 & R2 R3 & R3 set exparte J U D G M E N T

¶9

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in award and decree dated 22.6.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.162 of 2011.

¶10

Since the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appeal has been filed only challenging the quantum of compensation, I am not inclined to deal with the other aspects of the award.

¶11

With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants that they have lost their son in the motor accident that had occurred on 3.5.2010 involving the vehicle insured with the appellant Insurance Company. At the time of accident, their son was studying BBA III year and was 20 years old and he was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as part-time employee in Erode Samundi Medicals.

¶12

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

¶13

The Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased and after deducting 1/3 amount towards his monthly expenses, his contribution to the family per annum was fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.24,000/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal, by applying the multiplier of 17 on the basis of the age of deceased, arrived at a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- as total loss of dependency to the family of the deceased.

¶14

Now the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the claimants are the parents of the deceased, while calculating the loss of dependency to the family, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the amount from the monthly income of the deceased. Instead of doing so, the Tribunal had deducted only 1/3 amount from the monthly income of the deceased, which resulted in awarding an exorbitant sum of Rs.4,08,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of income, thus the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,33,000/- to the claimants, which according to the appellant is on the higher side.

¶15

Keeping in mind the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the entire materials available on record and I find that the Tribunal has fixed only a very minimum amount of Rs.3,000/- as income of the deceased. Hence, I am of the view that absolutely there is no need to deduct 50% of the amount towards his personal income from the monthly income of the deceased. In fact, the Tribunal has made calculation only in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also by this Court in various decisions under the head of loss of dependency to the parents of the deceased. Thereafter, by considering the other factors like, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,33,000/-. In my considered opinion, no interference is called for in the award passed by the Tribunal, particularly considering the fact the respondents 1 and 2/claimants have lost their son in the accident. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Since the entire amount has already been deposited by the appellant Insurance Company, the respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective share amount after deducting the amount that has already been withdrawn by them.

¶16

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar Dated:

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

II Additional District Judge, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Erode

¶23

The Section Officer, V.R.Section. High Court, Madras.

¶24

+1 cc to Mr.I.C.Vasudevan,Advocate,SR.31311

¶25

+1 cc to Mr.J.Michael Viswasam, Advocate,SR.30691

¶26

ts (co) krd 5/8

¶27

C.M.A.No.2439 of 2013

¶28

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

M/S Shriram General v. N.Manoharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shriram General v. N.Manoharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs v.Kanageshwari

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Minor H.Ashish

Siva Vs M. Selvi

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Vs Baby

N.P.Moorthy Vs Karanam Venkata Subbaiah

Suba @ Kalaivani Vs J.Nirmal Babu