The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of 6.88 lakh rupees. Finding no substantial challenge to the quantum or liability, the Court upheld the Tribunal's order at the stage of admission.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; Tribunal award of Rs. 6,88,000/- confirmed; connected M.P. closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 26.07.2018
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.BASKARAN
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1594 of 2018
and
CMP.No.12724 of 2018
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Reliance House, VI Floor, No.6, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
..vs.. 1.Swarnalatha 2. Mohan ... Respondents 1 & 2/Petitioners 3. Balamurugan ... 3rd Respondent/1st Respondent
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Order and Decreetal order dated 23.01.2014 made in MCOP.No.3417 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Gopalan Respondents : Ms.G.Anitha for R-1 and R-2 R-3 Notice Dispensed with
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the findings of the Tribunal, dated 23.01.2014 made in MCOP.No.3417 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the present appeal has been filed by the Second Respondent Insurance company to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
2.With both parties consent, this appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
8.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/claimants and perused the materials available on record.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal has awarded much higher amount as compensation without considering the materials on record properly. The Tribunal erred in considering the age of the deceased for fixing the multiplier instead of the age of the claimants. Thus, the appellant/Insurance Company sought for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal by entertaining the appeal.
10.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/petitioners/claimants contends that there is no merit in this appeal and it is clear from the grounds raised by the appellant/Insurance Company itself, that there is no merit in this appeal. Thus, the respondents 1 and 2 herein/petitioners/claimants seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
11.Even though, the appeal is filed by the second respondent/ Insurance Company, they have not raised any ground regarding negligence and liability. The Tribunal, on the basis of eyewitness account of P.W.3 and the contents of Ex.P1 First Information Report registered against the first respondent vehicle driver and E.X.P5 Charge Sheet filed against the same driver, correctly concluded that the negligence of the first respondent vehicle driver alone caused the accident. As such the only issue to be considered in this appeal is quantum only.
12.Even though the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal wrongly fixed the quantum of award, no specific, acceptable valid contention is raised by the second respondent/Insurance Company to modify or to set aside the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal.
13.The deceased stated to be 23 years and was employed as manager in a private company, earning Rs.4,50,000/- per annum. It is clear from Ex.P3 postmortem certificate and Ex.P2 death certificate, as well as Ex.P6 driving license of the deceased, he was aged 22 years. Admittedly, he died as a bachelor. According to the first petitioner who deposed as P.W.2, her son was carrying on business in the name of Venkateswara Industries and produced Ex.P8 Memorandum of Understanding, Ex.P10 Certificate of Registration, in support of their contention. Further, the income tax returns for the assessment year 20062007 to 2008-2009 is also produced. The Bank pass book of the deceased was produced as Ex.P12. The Tribunal, considering the fact that the said Venkateswara Industries was in the name of the first petitioner and on the basis of P.W.2 evidence fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. Further, as the deceased was bachelor, deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses. As the deceased was aged 22 years, the correct multiplier to be applied is 18. Thus, the loss of
dependency will be Rs.6,48,000/- (3,000 X 12 X 18 = Rs.6,48,000/-).
15.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The amount of Rs.6,88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal dated 23.01.2014 made in MCOP.No.3417 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai is hereby confirmed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rrg/ssi To The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
GJ(CO) sm:11.9.2018 C.M.A.No.1594 of 2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal when no substantial challenge is raised by the appellant.
Whether the Tribunal correctly calculated the loss of dependency and multiplier based on the age of the deceased.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Swarnalatha
Mohan
S. Baskaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
