Partly allowed

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangeetha

Madras HC21 Apr 2021CMA/712/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal partly. It held that the deceased driver was an employee during the accident. The award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act was modified, and compensation amount was calculated under the Employees' Compensation Act, directing the insurer to deposit the reduced sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs. 8,28,800 with interest @ 12% p.a. from accident date to deposit date as per Employees' Compensation Act; insurance company directed to deposit within four weeks.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sangeetha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 21.04.2021

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

¶5

C.M.A.No.712 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4344 of 2020

¶6

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, No.186/5, 3rd Floor, "Royal Tower", New Bus Stand Road, Meyyanur, Salem-636 004.

¶7

.. Appellant/2nd Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Sangeetha, W/o Basuvan 2.Minor Abisanth, S/o Basuvan 3.Minor Arjun, S/o Basuvan (Minors rep. by Mother Sangeetha) 4.Bakiyam, W/o Muniyappan

¶10

.. Respondents 1 to 4/Petitioners

¶11

5.R.Anandhan, S/o Radhakrishnan

¶12

.. 5th Respondent/1st Respondent

¶13

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree dated 06.08.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.93 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases), Krishnagiri.

¶14

For appellant : Mr.G.Vasudevan For respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran for RR-1 to 4 R-5 set ex-parte before the Tribunal

¶15

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

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Subbiah, J)

¶18

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Award dated 06.08.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.93 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases), Krishnagiri.

¶19

The respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants before the Tribunal. They are the wife, two minor children and the mother of the deceased Basuvan. According to the claimants, on 16.06.2016 at about 17 hours, when the deceased was driving the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29-AR-3213 on Dhule-Surat Highway road, he happened to negotiate a slope region of Kodaiebari Ghat. At that time, an unknown lorry which was proceeding in front of the lorry of the deceased, suddenly moved towards the left side of the road. On seeing the unknown lorry coming on the left side of the road, to avoid the accident, the deceased moved his lorry towards left side. In that process, the lorry toppled on the side of the road, resulting in the deceased sustaining fatal injuries and he died on the spot itself. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased Baswan have made a claim for a sum of Rs.40 lakhs as compensation.

¶20

The Claim Petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased was resisted by the appellant-Insurance Company by filing counter statement stating that the accident had occurred only due to the sole negligence on the part of the deceased himself and he is not a third party to the insured vehicle. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount and prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

¶21

In order to prove the claim, on the side of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and the eye-witness to the occurrence was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P-1 to P-13 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither any witness was examined nor document was marked.

¶22

The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only as narrated by the claimants in the Claim Petition. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs.23,43,719/- and the break-up details of the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are as follows:

¶23

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

¶24

Sl.No.	Heads under which the amounts are awarded by the Tribunal	Amounts awarded (in Rs).
1	Loss of dependency	22,17,600
2	Loss of consortium	25,000
3	Loss of estate	20,000
4	Funeral expenses	15,000
5	Love and affection	25,000
6	Transportation charges	40,919
	Total	23,43,719

¶25

The above compensation amount was awarded with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

¶26

Now, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company contending that the accident had occurred only due to the own negligence of the driver of the insured /deceased who was driving the lorry. Though it has been stated in the Claim Petition that the accident had occurred due to the negligent act committed by the unknown vehicle which was going in front of the lorry, which was driven by the deceased, except the evidence of P.W.2 who was stated to be the eye-witness to the accident, who had also travelled in the lorry, no other independent witness was examined. In the absence of any other witness to corroborate the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal ought not to have relied on the testimony of PW2. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the accident had occurred due to the own negligence on the part of the deceased. Moreover, the driver of the lorry is not third party to the insured vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount and the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal.

¶27

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants made his submissions supporting the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal.

¶28

Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully perused the entire materials available on record.

¶29

We find that it is the specific case of the appellant/Insurance Company that when the deceased was driving his lorry in the slope region, he had moved the vehicle to his left side in order to avoid hitting of unknown vehicle which was

¶30

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

¶31

moving in front of the lorry driven by the deceased and in that process, the accident had occurred resulting in the death of the deceased. From the manner of the accident as could be projected by the appellant, it can be easily inferred that there is negligence on the part of the deceased also. Further, the accident had occurred due to the own negligence of the deceased himself. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the accident had occurred during the course of employment of the deceased. Therefore, instead of awarding compensation to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation has to be awarded by treating it as an accidental death during the course of employment of the deceased. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and compensation could be awarded as per the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act (formerly, Workmen's Compensation Act). If calculation is so made as per the Employees' Compensation Act, the compensation is worked out as follows:

¶32

Age of the deceased at the time of accident: 31 years Income :Rs.8,000/- per month Factor : 205.95 sub-total (8000 x 205.95 x 50%) (personal expenses deducted at 50%) : Rs.8,23,800/Funeral expenses (added) : Rs.5,000/-------------Total compensation : Rs.8,28,800/===========

¶33

with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of deposit.

¶34

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the claimants are eligible only for compensation of Rs.8,28,800/- calculated as per the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act.

¶35

Accordingly, the amount of compensation calculated by the Tribunal by applying the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, is set aside and the compensation is now awarded as above as per the Employees' Compensation Act at Rs.8,28,800/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of deposit.

¶36

The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount which we have determined in this appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adjusting the amount already deposited by them and the excess amount, if any lying in deposit, shall be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company. On such deposit by

¶37

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

¶38

the appellant/Insurance Company, the respondents 1 and 4/claimants 1 and 4 are entitled to withdraw their respective shares before the Tribunal in accordance with law. As far as the share of the minor claimants 2 and 3 (respondents 2 and 3 herein) are concerned, their share shall be deposited in any fixed deposit scheme till they attain majority and the interest accrued thereon shall be withdrawn by the first claimant/mother once in three months.

¶39

With the above calculation so made under the Employees' Compensation Act and the directions issued, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.

¶40

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

¶44

¶45

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases), Krishnagiri.

¶46

+1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate Sr No.24640 +1cc to Mr.G.Vasudevan, Advocate Sr No.25276

¶47

C.M.A.No.712 of 2020

¶48

RSI (CO) PR (08/10/2021)

¶49

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

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangeetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangeetha

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

The Divisional Manager Vs G.Kala

The Managing Director Vs S.Jayalalitha

M.Noorjahan Vs N.Vengatesh

V.Deepak Kumar Vs Murugesan

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs R.Revathy

K.Arumugam Vs Karthiravan