Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Shri Lakshmi

Madras HC3 Mar 2016CMA/3136/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 19.5 lakh in fatal accident compensation caused by rash and negligent driving of a lorry, holding the Tribunal's findings on negligence and quantum reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; confirmation of Tribunal award of Rs. 19.50 lakh with interest.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs S. Shri Lakshmi — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 03.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

C.M.A. NO. 3136 OF 2014

¶6

M.P. NO. 1 OF 2014 AND C.M.P. NO. 2021 OF 2016 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. No.17-A, Krishnagiri Road SKS Complex, Ranipet Vellore District 632 401. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent - Vs - 1. S.Shri Lakshmi 2. Minor S.Mahalakshmi (Minor rep. by mother & natural guardian R-1) 3. C.Vasanthi 4. M.Chandran 5. M.Pandiyan .. Respondents/Petitioners/ 1st Respondent

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Addl. District & Sessions Court), Ranipet, Vellore District, made in MCOP No.276 of 2012.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr. S.Manohar For Respondents: Ms.Usharaman – R1 to R4 JUDGMENT

¶9

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

¶10

The appellant/insurer of the vehicle has filed the appeal challenging the award dated 24.06.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Addl. District & Sessions

¶11

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

¶12

Court), Ranipet, Vellore District, made in MCOP No.276 of 2012.

¶13

It is a case of fatal accident. On 26.11.2011, at about 04.30 p.m., when the deceased Senthilkumar, aged about 27 years, was riding his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN-23-AK7608 from Walajahpet to Sathambakkam, the lorry, bearing Regn. No.TN-24-F-1455 belonging to the fifth respondent herein, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle in which the deceased was riding from behind due to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Walajah, where he was declared dead. A case was registered against the driver of the lorry in Cr. No.792/2011 under Sections 279 and 304 (A) IPC.Mahindra Pickup Van under Section 279 and 304 (A) IPC by the Kandhikuppam Police.

¶14

The deceased, on the date of accident, was working as a lorry driver in Duraivel Lorry Service and earning a salary of Rs.13,000/= per month. The respondents, viz., the wife, minor child and parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/= as compensation.

¶15

5. In s wife of the eye witness to P-10 were Ex.P-1	upport of the claim, the first claimant, viz., the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Bharathidasan, to the occurrence was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P-1 marked,the details of which are as follows:- - Xerox Copy of the FIR
Ex.P-2	- Certified xerox copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report issued for motorcycle TN- 23-AV-7608
Ex.P-3	- Certified xerox copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report issued for lorry TN-04-K- 3309
Ex.P-4	- Xerox copy of post mortem certificate
Ex.P-5	- Xerox copy of insurance policy of lorry bearing Regn. No.TN-04-K-3309
Ex.P-6	- Xerox copy of record sheet of the deceased
Ex.P-7	- Family Photo of petitioners/claimants
Ex.P-8	- Xerox copy of notice sent by Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Walajahpet to Krishnamoorthy
Ex.P-9	- Xerox copy of protest petition filed by Krishnamoorthy before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Walajahpet
Ex.P- 10	- Certified xerox copy of docket notes order passed by Judicial Magistrate No.II, Walajahpet in CMP No.169/2012

¶16

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

¶17

On the side of the respondents, one Chandrasekaran was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-

¶18

Ex.R-1	-	Invest	igation Rep	ort
Ex.R-2	-	Xerox	copy of FIR
Ex.R-3	-	Xerox submit Taluk	Copy of ted by the Circle	mistake of fact report Inspector of Police, Arcot
Ex.R-4	-	Xerox report accide	copy of s of both nt.	Motor Vehicle Inspector vehicles involved in the

¶19

The Tribunal based on the oral evidence of the P.W.1, the F.I.R. and also taking note of the corroborating evidence in the form of the evidence of P.W.2, eye witnesses to the occurrence, which has been adduced to prove that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner coupled with the documentary evidence and further there being no satisfactory evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant to refute the eye witness testimony as to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry and, therefore, the liability was fixed on the appellant herein and consequently the appellant was directed to compensate the claimants. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded compensation under the following heads:-

¶20

Loss of Income - Rs.18,36,000 /= - Loss of consortium for first Rs.50,000/= claimant - Loss of Love & Affection for Rs.40,000/= claimants 1 to 4 (Rs.10,000 X 4) - Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/= - Transportation Expenses Rs.4,000/= - Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/= - Total Compensation Rs.19,50,000/=

¶21

In all the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.19,50,000/= with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition till date of payment/deposit with appropriate apportionment of the same between the claimants. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer of the vehicle is before this Court by filing this appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

that the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased has not been considered properly by the Tribunal while fixing the compensation. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the deceased has not been properly substantiated with documentary evidence and, therefore, fixing Rs.8,000/= as income of the deceased and adding 50% towards future prospects is not sustainable.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has analysed the evidence threadbare and has arrived at the finding fixing the negligence on the driver of the lorry. It is further submitted that the income along with future prospects fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Further, it is submitted that the compensation awarded on the other heads are on the lower side and this Court may consider enhancing the same.

¶25

This Court has given its careful consideration to the above contentions advanced by either parties. Insofar as the question of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal, based on the ocular testimony of P.W.2, who has clearly deposed that it was the lorry, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident, had fixed the liability on the insurer of the vehicle to compensate the claimants. No evidence contrary to the same has been adduced by the insurer to dispute the said fact. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to take a view different to the one taken by the Tribunal.

¶26

The deceased is aged 27 years, as is accepted by the parties and proper multiplier has been adopted to arrive at the compensation. Further, this Court finds that the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/= per month and adding 50% future prospects has fixed the income at Rs.12,000/= which considering the date of accident, viz., 26.11.2011, is just and reasonable and deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses, has arrived at the compensation of Rs.18,36,000/=. Further, it is to be pointed out that the Tribunal has awarded very meagre sums towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate. Even if the income has been fixed on the higher side, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, non-enhancement of compensation under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, would very much offset the overall difference in the compensation. Therefore, for the reasons abovesaid, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted with the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶27

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. It is stated that the entire award amount has been deposited along

¶28

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

¶29

with interest to the credit of MCOP No.276/2012. In such circumstances, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶31

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
GLN
To
The II Addl. District & Sessions Court
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal)
Ranipet, Vellore District.
Copy to:
The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court,
Madras.
+1 cc to M/s.UshaRaman, Advocate, sr.13721
+1 cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate, sr.13623
C.M.A. NO. 3136 OF 2014
ak co
kra 29.03.2016

¶32

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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Shri Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Shri Lakshmi

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 Managing Director Vs Diana Angelina

M/S. New India Assurance Co. Vs Ms. S. Juliet

Iffco - Tokio General Vs Ramathal S/O.Pattan

Union of India Vs N.Rajagopala Panicker

M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs P.Saravana Kumar

The Managing Director Vs Chandra