Partly allowed

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.Jeya Lakshmi

Madras HC27 Aug 2024CMA(MD)/1071/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal dismissed on withdrawal by appellant. Cross objection partly allowed enhancing compensation by Rs.1,20,000 to cover loss of love and affection for daughters based on Apex Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.1,20,000 in toto, with direction to Appellant to deposit the enhanced amount plus interest within four weeks.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs M.Jeya… — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶8

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024 & C.M.P(MD)No.11136 of 2024

¶9

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024

¶10

1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, No.2 and 3, Nungambakkam High Road, Chottabai Centre, Chennai - 35.

¶11

Represented by its Branch Manager.

¶12

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Junction, The Branch Manager

¶13

...Appellants

¶14

vs.

¶15

1.M.Jeya Lakshmi

¶16

2.M.Subbhu Lakshmi

¶17

3.M.Malathi

¶18

4.M.Keerthana

¶19

5.A.Charles

¶20

6.S.Dhinakaran ... Respondents

¶21

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

¶22

Page 1 of 8

¶23

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024

¶24

Prayer:

¶25

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to call for the records pertaining to the fair order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.1082 of 2022 dated 01.03.2024, set aside the same by allowing the appeal.

¶26

For Appellants : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar for R1 to R4

¶28

Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024

¶29

1.M.Jeya Lakshmi

¶30

2.M.Subbhu Lakshmi

¶31

3.M.Malathi

¶32

4.M.Keerthana ...Cross Objectors

¶33

vs.

¶34

1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, No.2 and 3, Nungambakkam High Road, Chottabai Centre, Chennai - 35. Represented by its Branch Manager.

¶35

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Junction, The Branch Manager

¶36

3.A.Charles

¶37

4.S.Dhinakaran ... Respondents

¶38

Page 2 of 8

¶39

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

¶40

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024

¶41

Prayer:

¶42

Prayer: Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Code to enhance the award amount made in M.C.O.P.No.1082 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli from Rs.30,77,399/- to Rs. 36,77,399/- with proportionate interest and costs.

¶43

For Cross Objectors 1 to 4 : Mr.V.Sasikumar

¶44

For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh

¶45

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

¶46

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

¶47

The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal and also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶48

2. In view of the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶49

3. The legal heirs of Muthaiya, who died in the accident have filed the present cross objection. Since the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, the cross objection can be treated as an independent appeal.

¶50

Page 3 of 8

¶51

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

¶52

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024

¶53

4. The Insurance Company has withdrawn the appeal and hence,

¶54

the manner of the accident and the liability fixed on the Insurance Company are not disputed.

¶55

5. The learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors would submit that the Tribunal ought not have fixed contributory negligence of 30% on the deceased as the Insurance Company did not produce any documentary evidence or let in any evidence to prove that the lorry was parked with necessary indicators in order to prevent the offending vehicle from hitting the lorry. He would further submit that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first cross objector who is the wife of the deceased. However, the Tribunal failed to award compensation to other cross objectors towards loss of love and affection.

¶56

6. Admittedly, the deceased Muthaiya hit the stationed vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly fixed the contributory negligence of 30%

¶57

Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024

¶59

on his part. Hence, the contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal need not be interfered.

¶60

7. However, the Tribunal though awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss

¶61

of consortium to the first claimant / wife, has failed to award compensation towards loss of love and affection to the daughters / claimants 2 to 4 / cross objectors 2 to 4. As per the decision laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601 , the claimants 2 to 4 / cross objectors 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 1,20,000/- in toto.

¶62

8. In the result, the Cross Objection is partly allowed and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1082 of 2022 is enhanced from Rs.30,77,399/- to Rs.31,97,399/-. The appellants are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount (less the amount already deposited by them, if any) together with interest

¶63

Page 5 of 8

¶64

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

¶65

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024

¶66

at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1082 of 2022 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants / cross objectors are at liberty to withdraw the same after following due procedure. The ratio of apportionment granted by the Tribunal shall be kept intact. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶67

(P.V., J.) (K.K.R.K., J.) 27.08.2024

¶68

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶69

mbi

¶70

Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024

¶72

¶73

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli

¶74

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

¶75

Page 7 of 8

¶76

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

¶77

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024

¶78

P.VELMURUGAN, J. and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶79

mbi

¶80

C.M.A.(MD)No.1071 of 2024 & Cros. Obj(MD)No.40 of 2024

¶81

27.08.2024

¶82

Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.Jeya Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.Jeya Lakshmi

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

V.Sundarrajan, Vs the Management, Thoothukudi

M/S.Sec Services Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs

J.Kennady Vs M.Manimegalai

M.Muthiah, Vs the District Registrar

M.Raj Mohamed Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

S.Rajkumar, Vs The Commissioner