Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. v. Rajeshkannah

Madras HC19 Dec 2017CMA(MD)/1836/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed the insurance company's appeal against the MACT award. The court held that the Tribunal did not commit an infirmity by fixing the deceased's notional income at Rs.4,000/-, as the respondent other than the appellant was satisfied with the lower award. Consequently, the appeal was not allowable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2013 closed.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs Rajeshkannah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.12.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.M.A.(MD) No.1836 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2013

¶7

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, No.1858, South Main Road, Thanjavur. ... Appellant/2

¶8

... Appellant/2^nd Respondent.

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

1.Rajeshkannah

¶11

2.M.S.Subramaniam & Company ...Respondents/1^st Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.222 of 2007 dated 30.03.2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.

¶13

For R1 : Mr.D.Selvanayagam For R2 : No Appearance

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This instant appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.222 of 2007 dated 30.03.2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.

¶16

2.Even though, various grounds were raised by the appellant, in the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has restricted his submission only to the ground that notional income fixed by the Tribunal was on the higher side and is incorrect. He submitted that the notional income ought to have been fixed at Rs.3,000/- and not Rs.4,000/-.

¶17

3.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the date of accident is 17.05.2005 and therefore, the notional income should have been fixed at Rs.3,000/- which is the notional income generally fixed by the Tribunals following the decisions of this Court and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Honourable Supreme Court for the year 2005.

¶18

¶19

4.Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 178, V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and anthor where, the Honourable Supreme Court had fixed notional income at Rs.10,000/- for the accident that had taken place on 11.04.2005. Following the said Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, the Tribunal should have fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-, since the year of the accident in the instant case is also in 2005. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that since the first respondent has not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, the first respondent is satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, according to him the award passed by the Tribunal fixing the notional income at Rs.4,000/- does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶20

5.This Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the first respondent and finds no infirmity or illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶21

6.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2013 is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

The Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur.

¶25

Copy to:

¶26

The Section Officer V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai(2 Copies).

¶27

+1CC to Mr.D.Selvanayagam, Advocate, SR.No. 93569 +1CC to Mr.K.Bhaskaran, Advocate, SR.No. 93597

¶28

C.M.A.(MD) No.1836 of 2013 19.12.2017

¶29

smi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AM/KK/SAR 1/12.02.2018/2P/6C

The Oriental Insurance Co. v. Rajeshkannah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. v. Rajeshkannah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager, Vs v.Baskaran

The Branch Manager, Vs Mathi

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs S.Sudalai Muthu

Employees State Insurance Vs the Ramalinga Mills Ltd.

K.Solaimalai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Assistnt Engineer, Vs v.Manikandan