The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Lakshmi

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.12.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

C.M.A.NO.2414 OF 2019
AND

¶6

CMP NO.11001 OF 2019

¶7

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
PPS Complex, First Floor,
Mettur Main Road, Omalur Town & Taluk,
Salem District - 636 455

¶8

...Appellant

¶9

Vs.

1. Lakshmi

2. Minor Chandru

3. Minor Santhosh

4. Chinnapillai

5. Kaveriappan
(Minors 2 & 3 are represented by their
Mother and guardian Lakshmi, first respondent)

¶15

6. M. Mohan

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 173
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and
decree dated 11.08.2018 passed in MCOP No.405 of 2017 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District
Court, Dharmapuri.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran

¶19

For respondents : Mr.S.Sathiaseelan
for R1 to R5
R6- No appearance

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Feeling aggrieved with the award passed by the tribunal,
the appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court with this
appeal.

¶23

2. The case of the claimant in brief is as follows:-

¶24

It is a case of fatal accident claim. The deceased, by
name Periyasamy, who was working as a driver, was aged about 27
years old. On 17.03.2017, at about 6.00 p.m., while he was
riding his two wheeler in Dharmapuri-Palacode road, opposite to
Somanahalli Primary Agricultural CO-op Bank, a Eicher lorry
bearing Registration No.TN 30 AJ 2018, belongs to the first
respondent, and insured with the second respondent in the claim
petition, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the deceased, in which he sustained fatal injuries.
Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri
and then Government Hospital, Salem for further treatment,
where, he succumbed to injuries on 18.03.2017. According to the
claimants, he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- and he was the
sole breadwinner of the family and hence, claiming compensation
of Rs.25 lakhs, wife, two minor children and parents of the
deceased filed the claim petition.

¶25

3. The first respondent/ owner of the offending vehicle
remained exparte. The second respondent/Insurance Company
contested the claim petition on the ground that due to the rash
and negligent driving of the deceased, the accident has taken
place and a false claim has been preferred by the claimants and
the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and
the compensation sought for by the claimants are highly
excessive and speculative. The Insurance Company also disputed
the monthly income of the deceased.

¶26

4. In order to prove the case, before the Tribunal, the
claimants examined 3 witnesses and marked as many as 21
exhibits. On the side of the respondent, no oral evidence has
been adduced, however, the xerox copy of the deceased Aadhar
card was marked as Ex.R.1.

¶27

5. The Tribunal, after considering the materials, has
held that the accident has taken place due to the rash and

¶28

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

¶29

negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent lorry
and fixed the negligence on the driver of the lorry. In
respect of quantum of compensation, the tribunal fixed the
monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and adding 50% towards future
prospects and deducting 1/4 towards personal expenses, arrived
at the notional income of the deceased at Rs.11,250/- and
applying multiplier of 17, arrived at a loss of dependency at
Rs.22,95,000/-. That apart, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and another
sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the
children and parents and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.5000/- towards transport expenses and in total,
a sum of Rs.23,60,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards
compensation. Now, aggrieved over the same, the Insurance
Company is before this Court with this appeal.

¶30

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that even though the claimants have stated that the
deceased was working as a driver, absolutely, there is no
evidence available on record to substantiate the case. That
apart, the accident has taken place in the year 2017 and the
Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- without any evidence, which is on higher side. He
would further submit that as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, only 40% of the monthly income should be taken
towards future prospects, whereas, the Tribunal has taken 50% of
the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects.
That apart, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased at 27
years based on the Post-morterm certificate. The Aadhar Card of
the deceased was marked as Ex.R1, in which, the age of the
deceased is mentioned as 33 years and hence, appropriate
multiplier of 16 shall be applied instead of 17 as fixed by the
Tribunal. The learned counsel also fairly submitted that
towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has granted very less
amount. However, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal and the
future prospects awarded by the Tribunal are not acceptable.

¶31

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the deceased was 27 years
old at the time of accident and he was working as a driver and
to substantiate the same, the driving licence of the deceased
was marked as Ex.P.19. That apart, the oral evidence was also
let in before the Tribunal, which was also not disputed by the

¶32

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

¶33

appellant/Insurance Company. The accident has taken place in
the year 2017 and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month
and the Tribunal fixed the earning only as Rs.10,000/- without
any reason whatsoever and he has also relied upon number of
orders passed in the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, the
monthly income of the driver was fixed at Rs.12,000/- to
Rs.15,000/-. The learned counsel also would submit that
considering the age of the deceased and the total dependents
numbering 5, and also considering his bright future, the
Tribunal added 50% of monthly income towards future prospects.
So far as the multiplier is concerned, as the Post Morterm
Report clearly reveals the age of the deceased as 27, the
Tribunal has taken his age as 27 and appropriate multiplier of
17 has been applied. According to the learned counsel, so far
as the loss of consortium is concerned, even though the
claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, the Tribunal
awarded a meager sum of Rs.50,000/- only. Apart from that
towards funeral expenses only a sum of Rs.5000/- has been
awarded by the Tribunal instead of Rs.15000/- and towards loss
of estate no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence,
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is much less
and the same is necessarily to be enhanced.

¶34

8. I have considered the submission made by the learned
counsel on either side and perused the materials available on
records carefully.

¶35

9. The primordial contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant is with regard to the monthly income of the
deceased and also the future prospects taken by the Tribunal.
From the evidence available on record, it could be seen that the
deceased was working as a driver. The accident has taken place
in the year 2017 and being a driver, he could easily get a sum
of Rs.12,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal taken the
monthly income at Rs.10,000. The Division Bench of this Court
also in number of cases fixed the monthly income at Rs.12,000/-
to the skilled labours. If the monthly income of the deceased
is taken as Rs.12,000/- and after adding 40% towards future
prospects and deducting 1/4 towards his personal expenses, the
notional monthly income of the deceased will come to Rs.12,600/-
and applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of dependency comes
to Rs.24,19,200/-, where as, the Tribunal granted only a sum of
Rs.23,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. That apart, as per

¶36

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

¶37

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi's
case, all the 5 claimants , who are the wife, minor children and
parents , are entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards
consortium, totally Rs.2,00,000/- where as the Tribunal has
awarded only Rs.60,000/-.

¶38

10. Hence, Considering all the above said facts and
circumstances, this Court finds that , the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and there
is no reason to interfere with the same and this Court finds no
merit in the appeal.

¶39

11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the award amount as ordered by the Tribunal, less the
amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the
award amount along with interest and costs as apportioned by the
Tribunal.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Assistant Registrar(J)

¶42

// True Copy //

¶43

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶44

mrp

¶45

To:

¶46

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court), Dharmapuri.

¶47

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

¶48

+1cc to Mr.S.Sathiaseelan, Advocate, S.R.No.41359

¶49

C.M.A.No.2414 of 2019

¶50

AK-II(CO)
RLP(12/11/2021)

¶51

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

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Lakshmi

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

N.Senthilkumar Vs the Kcp Ltd.

Kulothungan Vs Charles

M/S.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Poongavanam

R.Ponnusamy Vs K.Rajendran

Sivakumari Vs K.O,Srinivasan

Thunai Murugan Vs Sundharamoorthy