Allowed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mumtaj Parveen

Madras HC13 Oct 2023CMA/882/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed the Insurance Company's appeal against the Tribunal's award in a motor accident death claim. The Court reduced the future prospects to 40% and decreased the head damages for consortium/affection to Rs.40,000 per claimant, resulting in a modified total compensation of Rs.22,06,000/- to be disbursed by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation reduced to Rs.22,06,000/-. Parents get Rs.5,00,000/- each; wife gets Rs.7,06,000/-; minor gets Rs.10,00,000/-.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Mumtaj Parveen — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶7

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021 and

¶8

C.M.P.Nos.5075, 5078 of 2021 & 21133 of 2023

¶9

C.M.A.No.882 of 2021:

¶10

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, having office At Gopal Rao Library Building, Town Hall Road, Kumbakonam Munisif and Taluk. ...Appellant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.Mumtaj Parveen

¶13

2.Mohamed Mukhthar

¶14

[Minor represented by his mother and guardian, 1^st respondent herein]

¶15

3.M/s.AI Amaan Yourth Movement, represented by its Secretary, Having Office at 57-A, West Bazaar Street, Koothanallur, Needamangalam Munsif and Taluk.

¶16

4.Rasool Beevi

¶17

5.Mohamed Ariff ...Respondents

¶18

1/12

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶21

Prayer

¶22

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 11^th day of September, 2017, made in MCOP.No.60 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Mannargudi.

¶23

For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod For Respondents : Mr.D.Lakshmipathy for R1 and R2 Mr.P.Tamilavel for R4 and R5 R3 – Served – No appearance

¶24

¶25

C.M.A.No.884 of 2021:

¶26

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, having office At Gopal Rao Library Building, Town Hall Road, Kumbakonam Munisif and Taluk.

...Appellant

Vs.

1.K.A.Mohamed Arif

2.A.Rasool Beevi

¶31

3.M/s.AI Amaan Yourth Movement, represented by its Secretary, Having Office at 57-A, West Bazaar Street, Koothanallur, Needamangalam Munsif and Taluk.

¶32

4.Mumtaj Parveen

¶33

2/12

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶36

5.Mohamed Mukhthar

¶37

[Minor represented by his mother and guardian, 4^th respondent herein]

¶38

...Respondents

¶39

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 11^th day of September, 2017, made in MCOP.No.105 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Mannargudi.

¶40

For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod For Respondents : Mr.P.Tamilavel for R1 and R2 Mr. D.Lakshmipathy for R4 and R5 R3 – Served – No appearance

¶41

¶42

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶43

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶44

The Insurance Company is on appeal. The quantum of

¶45

compensation is under challenge.

¶46

3/12

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶49

2. The claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for

¶50

the death of one Mohammed Jinnah who died in a motor accident that occurred on 09.09.2009, contending that the said Mohammed Jinnah was employed as a driver of an ambulance owned by AL Ameen Youth Movement and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as salary.

¶51

3. It was the contention of the claimants that when he was returning in the ambulance from Chennai when the ambulance was nearing Koththattai Village on the Chidambaram - Cuddalore main road, the driver of the ambulance drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tamarind tree on the side of the road. As a result of the accident, the said Mohammed Jinnah suffered fatal injuries and died on the way to hospital. Terming the negligence on the part of the driver of the ambulance as the reason for the accident and the subsequent death, the claimants approached the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶52

4/12

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶55

4. The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the ambulance and it was due to the mechanical defect in the vehicle, the accident had happened. It was also contended that since the deceased was spare driver he was not covered by the policy of Insurance. It was also contended that the compensation is on the higher side.

¶56

5. Two original petitions were filed seeking compensation one by the wife and minor son in MCOP.No.60 of 2012 and the other by the parents of the deceased in MCOP.No.105 of 2012. Both the petitions were heard together and a common award was passed. Hence, there are two appeals.

¶57

6. At trial the 1^st claimant/ wife of the deceased Mohammed Jinnah was examined as PW1 and one Anbarasu was examined as PW2. On the side of the parents of the deceased, the mother Rasool Beevi was examined as RW1. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the claimants in MCOP.No.60 of 2012/ respondents 1 and 2 and Ex.R1 to R6 were marked on the side of the claimants in MCOP.No.105 of 2012, parents/ respondents

¶58

5/12

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶61

evidence.

¶62

4 and 5. The Insurance Company did not let in any oral or documentary evidence.

¶63

7. The Tribunal on a consideration of the FIR and the motor vehicle inspection report marked as Exs.P1 and P3 respectively concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ambulance. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/per month added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenses and arrived at the monthly loss of dependency at Rs.11,250/- Applying the multiplier '16', the Tribunal arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.21,60,000/-. The Tribunal added a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection for the wife, parents and the son of the deceased. Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation was fixed at Rs.25,45,000/-. Aggrieved the Insurance Company is on appeal.

¶64

6/12

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶67

8. We have heard Mr.K.Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Insurance company, Mr.D.Lakshmipathy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Tamilavel, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.

¶68

9. Mr.K.Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal was not right in granting 50% towards future prospects. He would also point out that the award of Rs.3,50,000/- under the heads of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses are on the higher side.

¶69

10. Mr.D.Lakshmipathy, learned counsel appearing for the

¶70

respondents 1 and 2 viz., the wife and son of the deceased and Mr.P.Tamilavel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 viz.,

¶71

the parents of the deceased would vehemently contend that the quantum as awarded by the Tribunal is justified since the deceased had an international

¶72

driving license and he had bright future prospects and the fact that the deceased was 31 years at the time of death was also projected as a factor.

¶73

7/12

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶76

11. We have considered the rival submissions.

¶77

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2018 (1) LW 331 had laid down that the future prospects would depend on the current employment. Admittedly the deceased was employed in private organization, that too as an additional driver at the time of the accident, therefore his employment cannot be taken as a permanent employment. Hence, the Tribunal was not right in adding 50% towards future prospects, it should have been only 40%. As regards the conventional damages viz., for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, the award is clearly against the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2018 (1) LW 331 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that it could only be Rs.40,000/- per head. The mother, father, wife and son each will get Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Therefore, the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection has to be reduced to Rs.1,60,000/-.

¶78

8/12

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶81

The award granted for funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/- also is on the higher side. We modify it as Rs.15,000/- for transportation and Rs.15,000/- for the funeral expenses.

¶82

13. If we are to take the income at Rs.10,000/- per month and add 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.14,000/-. If we deduct 1/4^th of it towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency per month would be Rs.10,500/-. Since the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier '16' is adopted and the total loss of dependency would be 10500 x 12 x 16 = Rs.20,16,000/-. To this a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses will have to be added. The total compensation would thus work out to Rs.22,06,000/-.

¶83

14. The same is apportioned as follows:-

¶84

The parents of the deceased will be entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- at Rs.2,50,000/- each with proportionate interest. The wife will be entitled to

¶85

9/12

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶87

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶88

Rs.7,06,000/- with proportionate interest and the minor child will take Rs.10,00,000/- with propotinate interest. The Insurance Company has deposited the entire award amount. The Tribunal will disburse the compensation as fixed by us and refund the balance to the Insurance Company. The share of the minor child shall be kept in a cumulative interest earning fixed deposit in a nationalized bank till he attains the age of majority. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶89

(R.S.M.,J.) (D.N.R.,J.) dsa 13.10.2023 Index :No Internet :Yes Neutral Citation :No Speaking order

¶90

10/12

¶91

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶92

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶93

¶94

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mannargudi.

¶95

11/12

¶96

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶97

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶98

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and Dr.D.NAGARJUN, J.

¶99

dsa

¶100

C.M.A.Nos.882 and 884 of 2021

¶101

12.10.2023

¶102

12/12

¶103

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mumtaj Parveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mumtaj Parveen

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

S.Shanmugam Vs Senthamizh Selvi

S.Haneef @ Syed Mohammed Haneef Vs K.Ayeesha @ Ayeesha Begum

A.Navin Kumar Vs I.Illakiya

S.K.Vijayakumar Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.

Magma Hdi Genral Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sachhala Pavitramma

Vinod Bhatla Vs V.N. Ramaswamy