Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance v. N. Sunil Kumar

Madras HC5 Sept 2024CMA(MD)/534/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by an insurance company challenging the compensation quantum in a motor accident claim. The Court modified the Tribunal's award, reducing loss of income and love and affection heads while confirming others, adjusting the total from Rs. 56.21 Lakhs to Rs. 24.33 Lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs. 56,21,000 to Rs. 24,33,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by the appellant.

The Oriental Insurance Vs N. Sunil Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :05.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD)No.534 of 2018 and CMP(MD)Nos.6281 of 2018 & 3375 of 2022

¶7

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, D.D.J.Complex Near, Vadaseri Bus Stand, Vadaseri, Nagercoil. .. Appellant/ 3^rd Respondent Vs.

¶8

1.N.Sunil Kumar 2.Deepa .. Respondents 1&2/Petitioners 1&2 3.A.Maheen Abubakkar .. 3^rd Respondent/1^st Respondent 4.C.Rajagopal .. 4^th Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent 5.S.M.Seethalakshmi .. 5^th Respondent/4^th Respondent.

¶9

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award of Rs.56,21,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs and Twenty One Thousand only) dated 03.01.2018 passed in

¶10

Page 1 of 9

¶11

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

¶12

C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019

¶13

MCOP.No.35/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

¶14

cum I-Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.E.Chandrasekaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Jeyakumar for R1 & R2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

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

¶18

The Insurance company filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.35 of 2016, dated 03.01.2018, on

¶19

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge(I-Additional Subordinate Judge),Nagercoil.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶21

The brief facts of the case is that the deceased the deceased was

¶22

pillion rider and the 5^th respondent herein was riding a Honda Activa motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN74 R 2225 and when they were was nearing the Christopher Colony turning, the 3^rd respondent driver of

¶23

Page 2 of 9

¶24

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

¶25

C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019

¶26

the offending vehicle Lorry bearing Registration No.RN 04 4145 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner without raising horn sound and dashed against the deceased vehicle due to which the claimants' daughter died on the spot. A case was also registered by the Nagercoil Traffic Wing Police. Since the 4^th respondent herein, owner of the Lorry was insured with the appellant, as an insurer, the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2.

¶27

The accident and the death of the deceased due to the accident

¶28

is also admitted by the appellant. The respondents 1 & 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased is also admitted. The deceased completed 12^th Standard and waiting for the admission in the professional College like, Engineering Courses, are admitted. Since the deceased succumbed to accidental injury, the Nagercoil Traffic Investigation Wing Police registered a case in Crime No.78/14 under Section 279, 337 & 304(A) IPC against the Lorry driver/3^rd respondent herein. At the time of accident, the deceased was a spinster. The Tribunal, after the enquiry, awarded a sum of Rs.56,21,000/- as compensation. However, the appellant has not disputed the accident, liability and insurance, but the

¶29

Page 3 of 9

¶30

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

¶31

C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019

¶32

appellant challenged the quantum alone.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently objected the quantum of compensation. He submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was just completed 12^th Standard and waiting for the Engineering admission and even no employment is proved and no income also proved. The Tribunal went to the extent of fixing Rs.30,000/- as notional monthly income and applied multiplier at 18 and also knowing fully well that the deceased was not employed, her future prospects also fixed as 40% and further the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,00,000/- for love and affection. Therefore, he is mainly questioning these three heads regarding the quantum of compensation.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 herein would submit that since the deceased had secured 1114 marks in her 12^th Standard examination and also waiting for the admission in the professional Course. If she got the admission and completed the studies, she would definitely get good job and get minimum Rs.1,00,000/- per month. By considering these facts, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of

¶35

Page 4 of 9

¶36

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

¶37

C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019

¶38

Rs.30,000/- per month as notional income. There is no perversity in the fixation of monthly income, adopting the multiplier and also the future prospects. Hence, according to him, the award passed by the Tribunal is just compensation.

¶39

As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was only a spinster. After completion of the 12^th Standard, she was waiting for the admission in the professional course. However, she died due to the accident and though the award of compensation cannot be compensate to her life sufferings, however, considering the fact that since she is unemployed, this Court feel that Rs.15,000/- would be appropriate for fixing as notional monthly income. Considering the brightness in the studies and her date of birth is 04.06.1996 and on the date of accident ie.,on 21.06.2014, the deceased is 18 years, which was not disputed and hence, the proper multiplier is 18. Since the deceased is not in employment either in the Government undertaking or in private employment, as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited .vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC), 40% of the income is

¶40

Page 5 of 9

¶41

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

¶42

C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019

¶43

added towards future prospects. Since the deceased died as a spinster, 50% of the income is deducted for personal expenses and hence, the

¶44

compensation under the head loss of income has to be fixed as under:

¶45

Loss of Income:

¶46

[Age of the deceased is 18 years] Notional monthly income : Rs.15,000/Add:Future Prospects at 40% [15,000*40/100] : Rs.6,000/---------------Rs.21,000 /- ----------------Less: Personal Expenses at 1/2^th [21,000 x 1/2 ] : Rs. 10,500/------------------Rs. 10,500 /-

¶47

Annual contribution to the family [Rs.10,500/- x 12] : Rs.1,26,000 /- Multiplier - 18 : Rs.1,26,000 x 18= Rs.22,68,000/Therefore Loss of Income : Rs.22,68,000/-.

¶48

As far as the love and affection is concerned, this Court is of the

¶49

view that each of the claimants are entitled only a sum of Rs.40,000/each, totally, Rs.80,000/-. On overall consideration, the compensation awarded under the other heads is reasonable and hence confirmed. Thus

¶50

the compensation is modified as follows:

¶51

Page 6 of 9

¶52

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

¶53

Sl.
No

¶54

C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019

¶55

*Sl.* No	*Description*	*Amount* *awarded by the* *Tribunal* *Rs.*	*Amount* *awarded by* *this Court* *Rs.*	*Award* *confirmed,* *enhanced or* *granted*
1	Loss of income	45,36,000/-	22,68,000/-	Reduced
2	Filial Consortium	40,000/-	40,000/-	Confirmed
3	Loss of Estate	15,000/-	15,000/-	Confirmed
4	Transportation charges	10,000/-	10,000/-	Confirmed
5	Damages to clothes	5,000/-	5,000/-	Confirmed
6	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-	15,000/-	Confirmed
7	Love and Affection	10,00,000/-	80,000/-	Reduced
	Total	Rs.56,21,000/-	Rs.24,33,000/-

¶56

In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award amount is reduced from Rs.56,21,000/- to Rs.24,33,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% pa from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the award amount, if any aleady deposited, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the excess amount already deposited, if any.

¶57

Page 7 of 9

¶58

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

¶59

C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019

¶60

On such deposit, the respondents 1&2 / claimants 1&2 are

¶61

entitled to withdraw the aforesaid amount together with interest and costs as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal.

¶62

11.With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

¶63

is partly allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶64

(P.V., J.) (K.K.R.K., J.) 05.09.2024

¶65

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No PJL

¶66

¶67

1.The I-Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil.

¶68

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

¶69

Page 8 of 9

¶70

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

¶71

C.M.A.(MD)No.358 of 2019

¶72

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

¶73

PJL

¶74

C.M.A.(MD)No.534 of 2018

¶75

05.09.2024

¶76

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

¶77

Page 9 of 9

The Oriental Insurance v. N. Sunil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance v. N. Sunil Kumar

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

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Amutha

S.Narayanaperumal, Vs Rajeswari

The Managing Director Vs P.Manjunath @ Manjunathan

The Director Of School Education Vs S Sridaran

Reliance General Insurance Vs Saravanan

S.P.Sha Vs Pettalpudur Hanabi Jamath