Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S.Selvakathiraman

Madras HC6 Jun 2023CMA(MD)/126/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an MC.A., the High Court allowed the appeal to the extent of modifying the Tribunal's award. The Court enhanced the compensation for loss of income, conjugal rights, and other heads of claim, increasing the total award from Rs. 4,05,000 to Rs. 6,56,000 and directed the deposit by the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Award of Compensation modified and enhanced to Rs. 6,56,000 to be deposited by the Insurance Company with interest; connected petition closed.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs S.Selvakathiraman — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD).No.126 of 2009

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.126 of 2009 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2009

¶7

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, City Branch II, 254, Goods Shed Street, Madurai. .....Appellant/2^nd Respondent -vs-

¶8

S.Selvakathiraman 2. S.Neelavathi 3. S.Packiajothi 4. G.Panju @ Pappathi ..... Respondents 1 to 4/ Claimants 5. J.Sundararajan .... Respondent - 5 /1^st Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.2328 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court-3, Madurai.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.A.Ilango

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.B.A.Muruganantham for R1 to R4 : Mrs.K.R.Sivashankari – for R5

¶12

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

¶13

1/9

¶14

C.M.A.(MD).No.126 of 2009

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court-3, Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.2328 of 2004 primarily on the ground of liability.

¶17

2. According to the claimants, the deceased Ganesan was a pedestrian

¶18

and he was hit by an ambassador car owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, in an accident that occurred at about 08.00 a.m on 24.10.2003. According to the claimants, the deceased was Quarry Supervisor and he was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) per month. The claimants prayed for compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only).

¶19

3. The owner of the offending vehicle had filed a counter contending that he had sold the vehicle long back and ultimately, the ambassador car was dismantled. Therefore, on the date of the accident, such a car was not available for use in the public road. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. A similar stand was taken by the Insurance Company in their

¶20

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

¶21

2/9

¶22

C.M.A.(MD).No.126 of 2009

¶23

counter. The Insurance Company has also disputed the negligence and the quantum. The Insurance Company has further contended that since the ambassador car has been dismantled, there was no insurance for the said vehicle on the date of the accident.

¶24

4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a finding that the accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the ambassador car. The Tribunal further found that since the Insurance Company has not specifically denied the fact that there was no insurance, mulcted the liability on the Insurance Company. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

¶25

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company had contended that it is the specific case of the owner of the ambassador car as well as the Insurance Company that the vehicle was dismantled long back and there was no insurance for the said vehicle on the date of the accident. A copy of the policy was also not marked by the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in mulcting the liability to satisfy the award on the appellant/Insurance Company.

¶26

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

¶27

3/9

¶28

C.M.A.(MD).No.126 of 2009

¶29

6. Pending appeal, the claimants have produced the copy of the Insurance Policy issued by the appellant/Insurance Company. A perusal of the policy indicates that it was issued in the name of the first respondent in the claim petition. The period of insurance was between 22.03.2003 to 21.03.2004 which covers the period of accident. A copy of the said policy was furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to verify the same from the Company. On verification, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that, in fact, such policy has been issued by the Branch Manager, City Branch -II, 254, Goods Shed Street, Madurai. Therefore, it is clear that the insurance policy was issued by the appellant/Insurance Company to the ambassador car owned by the first respondent and the same was subsisting on the date of the accident. Therefore, it is clear that the award of the Tribunal mulcting the liability on the Insurance Company cannot be interfered with.

¶30

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants had contended that the deceased was a Quarry Supervisor and he was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only). However, only a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) was taken

¶31

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

¶32

4/9

¶33

C.M.A.(MD).No.126 of 2009

¶34

as the notional income by the Tribunal and he sought for enhancement of the award under the head of loss of income. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded lesser amount under the head of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of estate and transportation charges. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the accident has taken place in the year 2003. The claim petition has been filed in the year 2004. The appeal is pending before this Court from the year 2009 onwards. So far, the claimant had not chosen either to file an independent appeal or cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation. That apart, the total award of the Tribunal is to an extent of Rs.4,05,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Five Thousand only). The accident has taken place in the year 2003 and it cannot be considered to be lesser amount and it does not require any enhancement.

¶35

8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, even if the claimants are not able to establish the actual income of the deceased person, the notional income was arrived at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only). Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in reducing the notional income from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation

¶36

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

¶37

5/9

¶38

C.M.A.(MD).No.126 of 2009

¶39

under the head of loss of income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.4,500x12x2/3x16 = Rs.5,76,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Seventy Six Thousand only)

¶40

9. The Tribunal has awarded just Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards loss of consortium. This Court is inclined to enhance the same to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards loss of consortium to the 4 th claimant. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/(Rupees Two Thousand only) to each one of the other claimants towards loss of love and affection. This Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.10,000/towards loss of love and affection for each one of the other claimants. The Tribunal has awarded just Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) towards funeral expenses. This Court is inclined to enhance the same to a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards transportation expenses.

¶41

10. In view of the above said deliberations, the award of the Tribunal is

¶42

modified as follows:

¶43

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

¶44

6/9

¶45

Loss of income	: Rs.5,76,000/-
Loss of consortium to the 4 th claimant	: Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection 10x4	: Rs. 40,000/-
Funeral expenses	: Rs. 10,000/-
Transportation charges	: Rs. 5,000/-
Total	: Rs.6,56,000

¶46

C.M.A.(MD).No.126 of 2009

¶47

11. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is modified and enhanced from Rs.4,05,000/- - to Rs.6,56,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Fifty Six Thousand only) and the said enhanced amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The 4 th claimant/ wife shall be entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) and the balance amount shall be shared by the other claimants equally. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

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

¶49

7/9

¶50

C.M.A.(MD).No.126 of 2009

¶51

12. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent as sated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶52

06.06.2023

¶53

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶54

¶55

Th e Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court-3, Madurai.

¶56

The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶57

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

¶58

8/9

¶59

C.M.A.(MD).No.126 of 2009

¶60

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶61

ebsi

¶62

C.M.A.(MD)No.126 of 2009

¶63

06.06.2023

¶64

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

¶65

9/9

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S.Selvakathiraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S.Selvakathiraman

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 Oriental Insurance Vs Rhinoj John Immanuvel

A.Seeni Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

M/S.Untied India Insurance Vs Nirmala

E.S.I. Corporation Vs Madras Cement Limited

Alagarsamy (Died) Vs Arunachalam Chettiar

The Managing Director, Vs Geetha