Allowed

Bajaj Alliance General v. Sakunthala

Madras HC10 Mar 2016CMA/179/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal judgment awarding compensation for a fatal accident. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's award of Rs. 13.14 lakhs, finding no merit in the appeal and directing the full deposit with interest.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. Insurance Company directed to deposit balance award amount with interest and costs within eight weeks.

Bajaj Alliance General Vs Sakunthala — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.179 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.15, Kolaman Complex, First Floor, Saradha College Road, Alagapuram, Salem District.

¶7

... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs.

¶8

1.Sakunthala 2.Minor Harini 3.Minor Madhumidha (Minors rep. by their mother and natural guardian -1st respondent) 4.Rajammal ... Respondents1-4/Petitioner 5.Palsamy ... 5th respondent/1st respondent 6.Tamilarasan

¶9

... Respondents1-4/Petitioner ... 5th respondent/1st respondent ...6^th respondent/3^rd respondent

¶10

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Sankari.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.C.Kulanthaivel for R1 to R4

¶13

The Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the Judgment dated 12.12.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Sankari.

¶14

It is a case of fatal accident. On 12.12.2007, at about 04.15 p.m., when the deceased Kumar aged about 35 years was riding a Bajaj Discover Bike bearing Registration No.TN 30 AZ

¶15

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

¶16

5357 from Sankari to Bhavani, near Lakshmi Nagar, Kaveri bridge west entrance, and he was slowly riding his bike on the extreme left, at that time, the Hero Honda Splendor bearing Registration No.TN-45-R-2140 came from North side mud road, which was riding by its rider in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and regulation with great speed suddenly crossed the National Highways road, dashed against the deceased two wheeler and caused the accident, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died in the hospital. The claimants, who are wife, children and parents of the deceased have filed a claim for compensation for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶17

In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1; one Ramesh and Palanisamy, who are stated to be the eye witnesses to the accident were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3, Exs.P-1 to Ex.P.15 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-

¶18

Ex.No. Details
P1 xerox copy of the FIR
P2 xerox copy of accident register
P3 xerox copy of the post mortem certificate
P4 xerox copy insurance police in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-45-R-2140.
P5 xerox copy of motor vehicle inspector's report in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-45-R-2140.
P6 xerox copy of motor vehicle inspector's report in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-30-AZ-5357.
P7 xerox copy of Rough sketch
P8 xerox copy of charge sheet
P9 xerox copy of list of witnesses
P10 xerox copy of observation mahazer
P11 xerox copy of death certificate
P12 xerox copy of legal heir certificate
P13 Medial Bills
P14 xerox copy of partition deed
P15 Sales receipt for sale of lorry

¶19

On behalf of the Insurance Company, the legal executive of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-

¶20

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

¶21

Ex.No.	Details
R1	Copy of Insurance policy for vehicle TN 45 R 2140
R2	copy of the Official notice issued to
	respondents 1 and 3 by the advocate of the 2nd
	respondent
R3	Acknowledgements cards

¶22

The Tribunal based on the oral evidence of the witnesses, the F.I.R. and also taking note of the fact that the deceased was having valid driving licence to drive the two wheeler came to the conclusion that the driver of the motorbike bearing Registration No. TN-45-R-2140 was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident and consequently liability was fixed on the Insurance Company. On this issue, learned counsel for the appellant has no serious objection with regard to the finding of the Tribunal as no material has been placed to come to a different conclusion from that of the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.

¶23

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:-

¶24

Sl.No .	Head	Amount granted by the Tribunal
1	Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased	Rs.12,15,000/-
2	Loss of love and affection	Rs. 40,000/-
3	Loss of consortium	Rs. 30,000/-
3	Funeral expenses	Rs. 10,000/-
4	Transportation	Rs. 10,000/-
5	Medical Expenses	Rs. 9,000/-
	Total	Rs. 13,14,000/-

¶25

Insofar as the compensation is concerned, based on the categorical evidence of P.W.1, Sakunthala, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-, which is very reasonable and is justified.

¶26

The Tribunal, based on the Apex Court's judgment in Sarla Verma's case and in view of the large family that the deceased was supporting, deducted 1/4 towards his personal expenses, which appears to be justified.

¶27

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

¶28

Considering the age of the deceased, at the time of accident, namely, 35 years, the Tribunal adopted 15 multiplier in consonance of the Apex Court's decision in Sarla Verma – vs. - Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009(2) TNMAC 1 (SC). Therefore, this Court finds no good reason to reduce the multiplier and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.13,14,000/-.

¶29

There is no serious objection in respect of the other amounts granted or the interest granted at 7.5% per annum.

¶30

In the above circumstances, finding no merit, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

¶31

11.The Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of the award amount and the claimants were permitted to withdraw 50% of their respective shares in the deposited amount. Hence, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance award amount, with interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, major claimants, are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. As far as the share of the minors are concerned, the same shall be invested in a nationalized Bank in Fixed Deposit Scheme till they attain majority and the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the interest accruing therein once in three months. There will be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶33

The Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Sankari. +1cc to Mr.S.Arunkumar, Advocate sR.15849 +1cc to Mr.C.Kulanthaivel, Advocate sr.15372

¶34

C.M.A.No.179 of 2014 kk(CO) eu(01/04/2016)

¶35

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

Bajaj Alliance General v. Sakunthala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Alliance General v. Sakunthala

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

The Regional Manager, Vs Gowri

Ms. Padma Priya, Vs Mr. M.Shriraman

Devi Vs E. Kuberan

J.Narasimhan Vs Union of India

M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs C. Ellappan

The Manager Claims Vs D.Karthick