In this appeal, the Insurance Company challenged the compensation award of Rs.10,50,000/ given to the claimants for a motor accident resulting in death. The High Court Bench held the award just and reasonable, finding no ground for interference with the Tribunal's assessment of income and damages.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMA.(MD)No.579 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 24/04/2024
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
CMA(MD)No.579 of 2021 and CMP(MD)No.5534 of 2021
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 82, Preetham Plaza, Gr.Flr & 1st Flr, Chandra Kandhi Nagar, Ponmani, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 018. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.S.Muthuraman 2.Rajesh : R1 and R2/Petitioners 3.Suresh Kumar : 3rd Respondent/R1
PRAYER: - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under
section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in MCOP No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Pudukkottai, dated 06/07/2020.
For Appellant : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari
For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.Srinivasa Ragavan
For 3rd Respondent : No appearance
1/7
CMA.(MD)No.579 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed in MCOP No.4 of 2016, dated 06/07/2020 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Pudukkottai.
2. The facts in brief :-
On 05/05/2015 at about 03.00 am, on the Pudukottai to Thirumayam main road near Pambaru bride, one Marimuthu was riding a bullock cart with idols and several persons were walking in front and on the back side of the cart. At that time, the Lorry bearing registration No.TN-63AC-5698 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bullock cart. As a result of which, several persons were injured. One Datchinamoorthy and other also died on the spot. One Maiyappan also died in the occurrence, so also one Sekar. Over the occurrence, a case in Crime No.78 of 2015 was registered against the driver of first respondent vehicle. Claiming compensation amount for the death of Sekar and Maiappan, MCOP No.4 of 2016 was filed.
3.That was resisted by the Insurance Company stating that on the date of the occurrence even though the policy was in force, the vehicle was not having proper
2/7
CMA.(MD)No.579 of 2021
registration certificate, fitness certificate and the driver did not have any proper licence. Apart from that, customary denials are also made.
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, 3 witnesses were examined and 22 documents marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, 2 witnesses were examined and through PW2, one document was marked.
5.At the conclusion of the enquiry process, the
Tribunal found that the occurrence took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent vehicle driver.
6.Regarding the compensation, age of the deceased
fixed at 50 and the notional income was fixed at Rs.7,500/-. By adding future prospects, it was fixed at Rs.9,375/-. 1/3rd customary deduction was made and finally, the loss of income was assessed at Rs.9,75,000/and customary amounts were also added. Finally, it fixed the total amount of Rs.10,50,000/-.
7.Against which, this appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company.
3/7
CMA.(MD)No.579 of 2021
8.In the grounds, it has been stated that the third respondent namely the father of the deceased was living separately and the assessment of compensation under various heads is not correct.
9.Regarding the medical expenses, there is no serious issue. The manner in which the accident took place speaks for itself. It was a hitting behind, so naturally the entire responsibility was fixed upon the driver of the offending vehicle. So the conclusion reached by the Tribunal on that aspect requires no interference at all.
10.Regarding the compensation amount also, I find that fixation of the notional income at Rs.7,500/- is not on the higher side. Even for agricultural labour, they are getting not less than Rs.500/- per day during the relevant time. But the Tribunal has taken the minimum amount of Rs.7,500/- per month due to the absence of any other materials to show that he was working as 'Servant'
in a hotel. Considering the age, he was having two children, the notional income fixed cannot be found fault. To that effect, the above said customary amounts were also added. So the fixation of the total
compensation under the head of loss of income at
4/7
CMA.(MD)No.579 of 2021
Rs.9,75,000/- is a just compensation, which requires no interference at all.
11.Regarding the loss of love and affection, the Tribunal fixed at Rs.25,000/- each. It is lesser against the norms. Apart from that, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which are also supported by the documents. Finally, it arrived at Rs.10,50,000/- as per the tabulation given hereunder:-
| Loss of Income | Rs. 9,75,000/- |
|---|---|
| Loss of love and affection | Rs. 50,000/- |
| Transport charges | Rs. 10,000/- |
| Funeral expenses | Rs. 15,000/- |
| Total | Rs.10,50,000/- |
12.I am of the considered view that the compensation
awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable compensation and no interference is required at all. So, no ground is made out to interfere into the award passed by the Tribunal.
5/7
CMA.(MD)No.579 of 2021
13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
24/04/2024 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er
To,
6/7
CMA.(MD)No.579 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
CMA(MD)No.579 of 2021
24/04/2024
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in assessing compensation at Rs.10,50,000/ for the death of the deceased.
Whether the fixation of notional income and customary deductions was legally unsustainable.
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
1.S.Muthuraman 2.Rajesh
3.Suresh Kumar
G.ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
