The Court partly allowed the insurance company's appeal. It held the accident resulted from 90% driver negligence and 10% deceased negligence. The total award was reduced accordingly due to contributory negligence.
Compensation reduced from Rs.13,29,600 to Rs.11,96,640; Appellant to deposit reduced amount within eight weeks.
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.
C.M.A.No.2919 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A.No.2919 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.22580 of 2022
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd 234, Mannadi Road Broadway, Chennai – 108 No.114, Prakasam Salai, Broadway Esplanade, Chennai – 600 108
.. Appellant
Versus 1.G.Gunasundari, W/o. Varadarajan 2.Varadarajan, S/o.Ellappa Both residing at No.401, Peterraja Street Sandrorpalayam Razak Garden, Arumbakkam Chennai – 600 106
2.Subburaj & Co 5/1st St, Sylvan Colony Kilpauk Chennai – 10 .. Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (In the Court of Small Causes, Chennai) made in MCOP.No.5689 of 2017 dated 27.09.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod For Respondents : Mr.Varathakamaraj
1/6
C.M.A.No.2919 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and
Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (In the Court of Small Causes,
Chennai) made in MCOP.No.5689 of 2017 dated 27.09.2021.
2.The Insurance Company is the Appellant herein seeking to challenge
the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.5689 of 2017 on the ground of negligence.
deceased viz., Madanraj. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as per their ranking before the trial Court. T he Factum of the accident is not in dispute.
2/6
C.M.A.No.2919 of 2022
conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent vehicle and accordingly, fixed the negligence liability on the offending vehicle namely the vehicle insured with the appellant company. Considering the age of the deceased as 18, whereas, as per the death certificate, it was 17 years, the Trial Court fixed the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month, future prospects at 40% (i.e., 3,200/-), totalling (i.e.,8000+3200 = 11,200). As per Sarla Verma's case, it fixed the total loss of dependency to the claim petitioners as Rs.12,09,600/- (i.e., 11,200 x 12 x 18 x ½ = 1209600). Furthermore, the Trial Court granted Loss of estate as 15000/-, Funeral expenses at 15000/-, transportation expenses at 10000/- and loss of love and affection to the claim petitioners 1 and 2 as 80,000/- (40,000/- each) totalling to the tune of Rs.13,29,600/-.
C.M.A.No.2919 of 2022
significance. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that contributory negligence of 10% has to be put on the head of the deceased. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligence of both, the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the deceased at the ratio of 90:10. Hence, the award amount is reduced by 10% (i.e., 13,29,600 – 1,32,960 (10%) = 1196640) after taking note of the contributory negligence.
6. In fine,
(i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the contributory negligence is fixed at the ratio of 90:10 among the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased. Accordingly, the compensation awarded is reduced from Rs.13,29,600/- to Rs.11,96,640/-. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal remains in tact. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(ii) the Appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the modified
reduced award amount before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount, if any already
C.M.A.No.2919 of 2022
deposited.
(iii) On such deposit being made, all the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their share in the award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal, less the award amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.
(iv) If at all the Appellant Insurance Company had already deposited the awarded compensation amount, after satisfaction of the award, the Tribunal is directed to refund the surplus deposited money taking note of the reduced compensation amount herein, to the Appellant Insurance Company.
04.01.2023
Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order dhk
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,
C.M.A.No.2919 of 2022
dhk
To
The Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal In the Court of Small Causes Chennai
C.M.A.No.2919 of 2022
04.01.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contributory negligence existed on the part of the deceased in the motor accident.
Whether the compensation award requires reduction due to the deceased's negligence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma's caseReferred¶28
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
1.G.Gunasundari
2.Varadarajan
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
