Dismissed

The Manager v. Vellaiyammal W/O.Venkatraman

Madras HC7 Jan 2014CMA(MD)/1044/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Upholding the Tribunal's finding of notional income and multiplier, the Court affirmed the award and directed the deposit of the remaining balance.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company was directed to deposit the balance award amount with interest and costs within four weeks for final payment to claimants.

The Manager Vs Vellaiyammal W/O.Venkatraman — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 07.01.2014 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶4

C.M.A.(MD)No.1044 of 2011

¶5

and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶6

The Manager, Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd., Tulsi Chambers 3rd Floor, 195, T.V.Swamy Road(West), R.S.Puram, Coimbatore.

¶7

... Appellant/Respondent No.2 - Vs -

¶8

Vellaiyammal 2. Venkatraman ... Respondents 1 & 2/Petitioners 3. R.Sakthivel ... 3^rd Respondent/Respondent-1

¶9

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.10.2010, made in M.C.O.P.No.137 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court), Karur.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.S.Gokulraj

¶12

for R.1 and R.2

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

Aggrieved by the quantum awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.137 of 2008, dated 30.10.2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court), Karur, the Insurance Company is before this Court.

¶15

In the accident occurred on 31.05.2007, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle driven by one Mr.Gopi, who drove the vehicle rash and negligently and hit behind a tyre bullock cart, resulting in death of Mr.Mani, son of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants. Therefore, a claim petition was filed to the tune of Rs.8 Lakhs.

¶16

On contest, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle and fixed the liability on the third respondent herein and to be paid by the appellant Insurance Company, as there was no valid driving licence for the person, who drove the two wheeler and a sum of Rs.3,38,000/- has been awarded.

¶17

Challenging the same, the appellant Insurance Company is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before this Court only on the ground of quantum.

¶18

¶19

Heard Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Gokulraj, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

Based on evidence, especially R.W.1 and R.W.2, the tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. Further, as the third respondent herein/the owner of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident, the Tribunal rightly directed the appellant to pay the amount and recover the same from the third respondent / the owner of the vehicle.

¶21

The deceased was aged about 26 years and he was alleged to be working as a Tailor. Though, a sum of Rs.6,000/- was alleged to be the monthly income, in the absence of any evidence for supporting the income, the Tribunal took notional income of Rs.4,500/-p.m., which in consonance with the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Kalpana & Others reported in 2007(1) CTC 523 . Therefore, the said determination cannot be found fault with.

¶22

Similarly 50% of income was deducted towards personal expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor. Based on the age of the mother of the deceased, the proper multiplier of "11" has also been applied and therefore, the same is confirmed. As far as the other amounts awarded under other headings are concerned, they are all reasonable. Therefore, this Court is unable to take any exception to the award granted by the Tribunal.

¶23

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶24

It is represented by the learned Counsel for the parties, 50% of the award amount alone was deposited before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest and costs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the Tribunal is directed to pay the entire amount to the claimants within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(Per Admn.)

¶27

/TRUE COPY/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court), Karur. +1cc to Mr.S.Srinivas Raghavan, Advocate SR.No.1702

¶31

C.M.A.(MD)No.1044 of 2011 and

¶32

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶33

07.01.2014

¶34

ssl https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PA/11.02.2014/2P/3C

The Manager v. Vellaiyammal W/O.Venkatraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Vellaiyammal W/O.Venkatraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Deivaprakasam Vs Asan Aliar

Shahana Abbasi, Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corpn

Ramu, Vs T.Vijaya Kumar

United India Insurance Co. Vs Jayakodi, W/O. K. Chinnasamy

The Managing Director, Vs Thailammai

The Managing Director, Vs v.Nagoor