Allowed

Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Inbavalli

Madras HC3 Mar 2016CMA/81/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by an insurer challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award following a fatal accident. The court corrected the loss of income calculation by adjusting the multiplier, modified other compensation heads including consortium and funeral expenses, and set aside 9% per annum penal interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation modified to Rs. 18,09,648/=; 9% penal interest set aside; claimants permitted to withdraw deposited amount.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Inbavalli — 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

M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Sundaram Towers No.45 & 46, Whites Road Chennai 600 004. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent - Vs -

¶6

Inbavalli 2. R.Pavithra (Minor) 3. R.Balakrishnan (Minor) 4. R.Surya (Minor) 5. R.Vijakanth (Minor) (RR-2 to 5 rep. by mother & natural guardian R-1)

¶7

C.Nagesh ... Respondents/Petitioners and 1st Respondent

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri, made in MCOP No.570 of 2013.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

The appellant/insurer of the vehicle has filed the appeal challenging the award dated 18.12.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri, made in MCOP No.570 of 2013.

¶12

It is a case of fatal accident. On 28.03.2010, at about 11.00 a.m., when the deceased Raman, aged around 50 years, was travelling in the Mahindra Pickup Van bearing Regn. No.TN-24-F1455 belonging to the sixth respondent herein, and proceeding near Kalikoil Forest Check Post on the Krishnagiri-Kuppan Road towards Kuppam, the driver of the van, driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, hit the iron post of the check post due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries to his vital organs. The deceased was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri from where he was referred to Bangalore and enroute to the hospital at Bangalore, the deceased died. A case was registered against the driver of the Mahindra Pickup Van under Section 279 and 304 (A) IPC by the Kandhikuppam Police.

¶13

The deceased, on the date of accident, was working in the Sindagampalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society and earning a salary of Rs.10,114/= per month. The respondents, viz., the wife and minor children of the deceased have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/= as compensation.

¶14

In support of the claim, the first claimant, viz., the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Muthusamy, eye witness to the occurrence was examined as P.W.2 and Balasubramanian, co-employee was examined as P.W.3 to prove the income of the deceased and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-

¶15

Ex.P-1	-	Copy	of	the FIR
Ex.P-2	-	Copy decea	of sed	the Post-mortem certificate of Raman
Ex.P-3	-	Copy Picku	of p V	insurance policy of the Mahindra an
Ex.P-4	-	Copy	of	the legal heir certificate
Ex.P-5	-	Copy decea	of sed	the salary certificate of the attested by P.W.3
Ex.P-6	-	Copy attes	of ted	service register of deceased by P.W.3
Ex.P-7	-	Copy P.W.3	of	Government Order duly attested by

¶16

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

¶17

On the side of the respondents, one Prabhu was examined as R.Ws. 1 & 2 and Vinoth Kumar was examined as R.W.3 and Exs.R1 to R-8 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-

¶18

Ex.R-1	-	Driving licence	of G.Nagesh
Ex.R-2	-	Driving license	of Moorthy
Ex.R-3	-	Copy of Policy Insurance Ltd.	Schedule of	Royal Sundaram
Ex.R-4	-	Letter with Sundaram Insuran	acknowledgem ce	ent sent to
Ex.R-5	-	Acknowledgement respondent by Ro	card sent yal Sundaram	to the first Insurance Ltd.
Ex.R-6	-	Letter to acknowledgement Insurance Ltd.	L.Moorthy sent by	along with Royal Sundaram
Ex.R-7	-	Copy of the mot of motor vehicle	or vehicle in involved in	spection report the accident
Ex.R-8	-	Charge sheet

¶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 van was driven in a rash and negligent manner and also taking into account the evidence of P.W.3 to prove the income of the deceased 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 van, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van 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.16,24,500/=
Loss of consortium for first claimant	-	Rs. 50,000/=
Loss of Love & Affection for	-	Rs. 1,00,000/=
claimants 2 to 5 (Rs.25,000 X 4)
Funeral Expenses	-	Rs. 25,000/=
Transport to Hospital	-	Rs. 10,000/=
Total Compensation	-	Rs.18,09,500/=

¶21

In all the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.18,09,500/=. In the award, it was observed that if the award amount is not deposited within one month from the date of the

¶22

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

¶23

award/order, the appellant was directed to pay penal interest at 9% per annum on expiry of one month from the date of the award/order till the date of deposit of the award amount before the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer of the vehicle is before this Court by filing this appeal.

¶24

The only point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the multiplier of 13 adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous and the proper multiplier would be 11 considering the age of the deceased at 50 years.. On the above point, this Court heard the learned counsel for the claimants, who submitted that very meagre amounts have been awarded under the other heads and enhancement of the same in lieu of the multiplier would offset the amount that would fall in excess on account of the erroneous multiplier.

¶25

This Court has given its careful consideration to the above contentions advanced by either parties. The deceased is aged 50 years, as is accepted by the parties and the proper multiplier to be adopted is 11. The Tribunal has fixed the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.10,414/=. Adopting the multiplier of 11, the compensation towards “Loss of Income” would be Rs.13,74,648/= (Rs.10,414 X 12 X 11). Accordingly, this Court awards a compensation of a sum of Rs.13,74,648/= under the head “Loss of Income”.

¶26

Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads is concerned, this Court finds that the compensation of Rs.50,000/= awarded under the head “Loss of Consortium” to the first claimant is on the lower side and, accordingly, this Court enhances the amount awarded under the said head to Rs.1,00,000/=. Similarly, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/= awarded to claimants 2 to 5 on the head “Loss of Love & Affection” is also on the lower side and, accordingly, this Court enhances the same to Rs.3,00,000/= (Rs.75,000 X 4). The compensation of Rs.10,000/= awarded under the head “Transportation Expenses” is also on the lower side and, accordingly, this Court enhances the compensation under the said head to Rs.20,000/=. Similarly, the compensation of Rs.25,000/= awarded under the head “Funeral Expenses” is on the higher side. Accordingly, this Court reduces the compensation under the said head to Rs.15,000/=.

¶27

Accordingly, this Court modifies the award as under :-

¶28

	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount awarded by this Court
Loss of Income	Rs.16,24,500/=	Rs.13,74,648/=
Loss of consortium for	Rs. 50,000/=	Rs. 1,00,000/=
first claimant

¶29

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

¶30

Loss of Love & Affection	Rs. 1,00,000/= Rs. 3,00,000/=
for claimants 2 to 5
Funeral Expenses	Rs. 25,000/= Rs. 15,000/=
Transport to Hospital	Rs. 10,000/= Rs. 20,000/=
Total Compensation	Rs.18,09,500/= Rs.18,09,648/=

¶31

The penal/default interest granted at 9% cannot be justified as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Vs – Keshav Bhahadur & Ors. (2004 ACJ 648). Therefore, the penal/default interest granted at the rate of 9% per annum by the Tribunal is set aside.

¶32

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. However, the penal interest granted at 9% per annum is set aside. This Court, while granting stay, directed the appellant to deposit the entire award amount along with interest to the credit of MCOP No.570/2013. In such circumstances, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal in consonance with the modification made by this Court. The share of minor claimants are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks till they attain majority. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee immediately. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

GLN Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶37

The District Judge Special District Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Krishnagiri.

¶38

Copy To

¶39

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

¶40

+1cc to Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, S.R.No.14186 +1cc to Mr.S.Murugan, Advocate, S.R.No.14046

¶41

C.M.A. NO. 81 OF 2015

¶42

SAI(CO) CA(31/03/2016) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Inbavalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Inbavalli

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 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