Partly allowed

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Valliyammal

Madras HC13 Jun 2019CMA/2023/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an insurance dispute arising from a motor accident, the Court modified the compensation quantum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Recognizing certain heads as excessive despite established liability, the Court reduced the total amount from Rs. 8.11 lakhs to Rs. 6.36 lakhs while confirming the pecuniary benefits head.

What did the court decide?

The compensation is modified to Rs. 6,36,000/-; appellant permitted to withdraw balance from deposited Rs. 7 lakhs.

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Valliyammal — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.06.2019

¶3

THE HONOURABLE TMT. JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM

¶4

C.M.A.No.2023 of 2015

¶5

M/s. Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co.Ltd. Sundaram Towers, No. 45 & 46 Whites Road, Chennai-600 014. ..Appellant/2^nd Respondent in Tribunal below Vs.

¶6

Valliyammal

¶7

Ayyanar

¶8

Poorani

¶9

Arumugam

¶10

Hamsa

¶11

P. Boopathi ...Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 5 and 1^st Respondent in Tribunal below

¶12

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act against the Judgment and decree dated 06.02.2015 passed in MCOP. No. 1148 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. E.Rajadurai

¶14

For Respondents : M/s R.Kalaiarasan -R1 to R5

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This Civil Miscellaneous has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 06.02.2015 passed in MCOP. No. 1148 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶17

Brief facts leading to the claim application are as follows;

¶18

3.1. On 13.11.2012 at about 19.30 hrs, the deceased was on duty as Security at Pallikaranai Mothers School. At that time, the Dost Goods Vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN22 CS 0115 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering the public safety came at a dangerous speed and hit against the deceased who was standing in Velachery main road, south to north direction. Due to which the deceased fell down and suffered serious head injuries and died later in the hospital. The 1st respondent and 2nd respondents being the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are vicariously

¶19

liable to pay compensation. The petitioners being legal heirs of the deceased have claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation.

¶20

3.2. The Insurance Company in the counter statement had denied the mode of the accident as narrated by the claimants in the claim petition. The compensation claimed under various heads were also denied as excessive and possession of the valid driving licence by the driver of the said vehicle was also denied in the counter statement.

¶21

3.3. The tribunal after analysing evidence and documents has concluded that the death occurred only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent's vehicle driver and being the insurer of the said vehicle, the tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs,8,11,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved against the liability and compensation awarded by the tribunal, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal to set aside the same.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the documents available on record.

¶23

On perusal of records, it is seen that the deceased was aged about 60 years as per the post mortem certificate. It is also seen as per the evidence of the claimants, the deceased was working as a Security and was earning Rs.6,000/per month, to that effect, PW2-eye witness was examined. Hence by considering the age and occupation of the deceased, the tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- and determined the loss of income.

¶24

The grievance of the appellant is that sum of awarded under head 'Loss of Consortium' to the 1st petitioner at Rs.1,00,000/- is highly excessive and and compensation awarded to the claimants who are all major and also not dependent to the deceased is also not reasonable. The total compensation awarded by the tribunal, which is more that the claim of the claimants is also not fair, without any justification.

¶25

Though no rebuttal evidence has been let in on the behalf of the appellant before the tribunal to disprove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle, upon which, the tribunal has fixed the liability on this appellant, this Court by considering the arguments of the appellant and also the age and occupation of the deceased and the documents placed before the tribunal to substantiate the claim, inclined to modify the compensation reasonably. It is seen that the amount awarded by the tribunal under certain heads are excessive, hence this Court modify the amount under heads 1. Funeral expenses, 2. Loss of Consortium https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the 1st petitioner, 3. Loss of companionship to the

¶26

petitioners.

¶27

It is seen that the sum awarded under the had loss of pecuniary benefits at Rs.4,86,000/- by taking monthly income at Rs.6000/- and by adopting multiplier is proper,hence the same is confirmed. Further, the tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of estate, hence this Court grants a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head 'Loss of Estate". Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified by this Court as below;

¶28

Head	Sum awarded by the tribunal	Sum modified by this Court
Loss of pecuniary benefits	4,86,000	4,86,000
Loss of Consortium to	1,00,000	40,000
the 1st petitioner
Loss of companionship	2,00,000	80,000
to the petitioners
Funeral expenses	25,000	15,000
Loss of estate	--	15,000
Total	8,11,000	6,36,000

¶29

Thus the claimants are entitled to only a sum of Rs.6,36,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum.

¶30

In the result

¶31

(i). The Civil Miscellaneous is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition if any, is closed.

¶32

(ii). From the compensation of Rs.6,36,000/-, the 1st respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,36,000/- and the respondents 2 to 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- each.

¶33

(iii) Since it is represented by the appellant/Insurance Company that they have deposited a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- before the tribunal, they are permitted to withdraw the remaining amount. the Tribunal shall transfer the modified amount to the claimants' bank account through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereon.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶36

//True copy//

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶42

Copy To The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.N.M. Muthurajan, Advocate SR.No.47940 +1cc to Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate SR.No.48809

¶43

C.M.A.No. 2023 of 2015

¶44

BP(CO) GMY(09/01/2020)

¶45

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

¶46

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

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Valliyammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Valliyammal

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

Murugan Vs the Managing Director

N.Karthikeyan, Vs the Managing Director, Mtc., Ltd., Chennai

The Branch Manager, Vs Murugammal

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Perumal,S/O.Poongavanam

V. Navaneetham Vs M. Sheik Mohameed

Reliance General Insurance Vs Kaliyammal