Dismissed

National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Sakthivel

Madras HC4 Jun 2024CMA/265/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance appeal against a motor accident compensation award for the death of a pillion rider. The court held that under a comprehensive/package policy, the legal heirs of the pillion rider are entitled to compensation even though they are also heirs of the negligent rider, and found the quantum just, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; award of Rs.13,40,400/- confirmed; insurer directed to deposit amount with interest and costs within eight weeks; claimants permitted to withdraw per Tribunal apportionment.

National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Sakthivel — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.No.265 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved On : 29.02.2024

¶4

Delivered On: 04.06.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

C.M.A.No.265 of 2020 and

¶8

C.M.P.No.1867 of 2020

¶9

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Do.X, Hero Honda Vertical, 101-106 BMC House, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001

¶10

...Appellant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.Sakthivel 2.Saravanan

¶13

3.Manikandan

¶14

4.Sakkunthala Shankar ( late) 5. Krishnan (Respondents 1 to 3 are declared as majors and their grandmother Sakkunthala is discharged from guardianship of R1 to R3 vide court order dated 29.12.2024 in CMP.No.19306/2022 in CMA.No.265 of 2020) ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and Judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 2015 dated 21.12.2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Namakkal).

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/9

¶17

1/9

¶18

C.M.A.No.265 of 2020

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel For respondent 4 : Died For respondent 5 : No appearance

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground of liability and negligence.

¶22

The respondents 1 to 3, represented by their grandmother and the 4^th respondent herein filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 2015 claiming compensation for the death of the mother in the road accident on 09.09.2013. In M.C.O.P.No.152 of 2015, the petitioners 1 to 3 are the sons of the deceased Dhanam, wife of Shankar, 4^th petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased, 2^nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. In the claim petition, the manner of the accident is described as on 09.09.2013 at about 3.15pm., opposite Pramma Sakthi Mahal at Nehru Nagar in Acheruppakkam Main Road, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a Hero Honda Splendor Plus Spokes Bike bearing registration No.TN 25 AA

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9

¶24

C.M.A.No.265 of 2020

¶25

8664 towards her residence from Chennai, the rider/husband of the deceased drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules suddenly hit the center median wall, due to which, the deceased sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries all over the body. It was claimed by the claim petitioners that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the bike bearing registration No. TN 25 AA 8664.

¶26

The appellant/Insurance company filed a counter, resisting the claim petition on the ground that the compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 is excessive; that the accident did not take place due to the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler and as per the policy rules, the claim petitioners, being the legal heirs of the rider of the two wheeler, are not entitled to compensation and hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Before the Tribunal, the 4^th respondent herein examined herself as P.W.1 and occurrence witness was examined as P.W.2 and nine documents

¶28

were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The appellant/Insurance Company examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/9

¶30

C.M.A.No.265 of 2020

¶31

The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence available

¶32

on record, came to the conclusion that accident has taken place due to the rash

¶33

and negligent driving of the rider of the two wheeler, Shankar and appellant/Insurer is liable to pay compensation and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.13,40,400/-( rupees thirteen lakhs forty thousand and four hundred only).

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the Insurance Company cannot be vested with the liability since the claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased rider of the two wheeler.

¶35

Per contra, Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/ claim petitioners would contend that respondents 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased victim namely pillion rider and the policy, being the comprehensive policy, the Insurance company cannot disown the liability and is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He would also contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/9

¶37

C.M.A.No.265 of 2020

¶38

On perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.2, the occurrence witness coupled with Ex.P1, FIR and in the absence of any contra evidence, this Court comes to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the two wheeler namely Shankar, who died due to the injuries sustained in the very same accident and on the date of the accident, the 2^nd respondent before the Tribunal, being the owner of the vehicle had valid package policy issued by the appellant/Insurance company on the date of the accident.

¶39

Whether the claim petitioners are not entitled to compensation on the ground that the vehicle was borrowed by the rider of the two wheeler and met with an accident in which pillion rider died and whether the claim petitioners

¶40

are entitled to compensation or not when the insurance policy is a package policy are no longer res integra.

¶41

In C.M.A.No.53 of 2023, this Court had an occasion to consider the

¶42

very similar position and by judgment dated 06.03.2023, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

¶43

Company Limited Vs Balakrishnan and another reported in [( 2013) 1 SCC

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/9

¶45

C.M.A.No.265 of 2020

¶46

731] held that once the policy of Insurance company is a package policy and when the pillion rider died in the accident, the legal heirs of the pillion rider are entitled to compensation and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation under the policy and to add more, merely because the claim petitioners are happened to be the sons of the rider of the two wheeler, the same will not debar them from making the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, as the very same claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased, the policy being the package policy, the Insurance Company is bound to honour the same. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the appellant/Insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.

¶47

On considering the compensation awarded under various heads, I find that proper multiplier has been adopted and the Tribunal had fixed the monthly notional income as Rs.6,500/- and 40 % future prospects has been awarded as the deceased was aged 35 years on the date of the accident and hence, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and fair. The award under the other heads is also reasonable and no interference is called for. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the award of the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed.

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/9

¶49

C.M.A.No.265 of 2020

¶50

In the result, on the point of negligence, liability and quantum of compensation, the order of the Tribunal is just and fair and the same does not require any interference in the appellate stage. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶51

In fine,

¶52

(i) the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the compensation awarded by the Tribunal dated 21.12.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 2015 by the Additional District Judge, Namakkal (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal).

¶53

(ii) the appellant/Insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount before the Tribunal along with interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount, if any already deposited.

¶54

(iii) on such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 4/claim petitioners 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw the award amount on the basis of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/9

¶56

C.M.A.No.265 of 2020

¶57

(iv) No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶58

04.06.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No nr

¶59

To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Namakkal).

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/9

¶61

C.M.A.No.265 of 2020

¶62

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,

¶63

¶64

Pre-delivery order made in C.M.A.No.265 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.1867 of 2020

¶65

04.06.2024

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/9

National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Sakthivel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Sakthivel

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

G.Muralidharan Vs Suriyabi

Erode Municipal Corporation Vs M/S. E.R. Rangasamy and

Durga Vs Jeyalakshmi

R. Kalaivani Vs D. Vijayalakshmi

S.a.Venketachalam(Died), 1.Revathy Vs Kamalammal(Died), Kannathasan

R.Ramasamy Vs K.Marappan