Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Sakila Beevi

Madras HC7 Feb 2024CMA(MD)/651/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance appeal against motor accident award. Court reduced compensation by adjusting notional income, rounding off the total award to Rs. 18,00,000/- while maintaining statutory interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs. 19,82,000/- to Rs. 18,00,000/- with 7.5% interest.

What the court decided

The Branch Manager Vs Sakila Beevi — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A(MD)No.651 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.651 of 2022 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5642 & 8701of 2022

¶8

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 61/2694 1^st Floor, Floor in Indian Bank, South Main Street, Thanjavur-613 009.

... Appellant

Vs.

1.Sakila Beevi

2.Mohamed Azarudeen

3.Minor.Mohamed Ashik

¶14

4.Mumtaj Begam

¶15

5.Sulaika Beevi

¶16

6.Sridhar

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(3^rd Minor respondent is represented through his mother / guardian 1^st respondent Sakila Beevi)

¶19

(R6 set exparte in Tribunal: Notice dispensed with)

¶20

1/6

¶21

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

¶22

C.M.A(MD)No.651 of 2022

¶23

PRAYER:

¶24

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the order, dated 06.12.2021, passed in M.C.O.P.No.338 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Pudukkottai.

¶25

For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali For R1 to R5 : Mr.R.Maheswaran For R6 : Set Exparte *****

¶26

JUDGEMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶28

The contention of the Insurance Company is that the deceased Raja was working as a Mason and the accident was occurred in the year 2016. The Insurance Company claims that the respondents/claimants have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased ought to be fixed as Rs.8,000/-. But the Tribunal has fixed the notional income as Rs.12,798/and the same is on the higher side.

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

C.M.A(MD)No.651 of 2022

¶32

The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of

¶33

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance reported in 2014 1 TNMAC 459 (SC) and submitted that the notional income of the deceased ought to be fixed as Rs.6,500/-.

¶34

It is seen that the Tribunal has taken the notional income as Rs.6,500/- by relying the case of Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance reported in 2014 1 TNMAC 459 (SC) and thereafter , by applying inflation, Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the notional income of the deceased ought to be fixed as Rs.12,798/-.

¶35

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the respondents/claimants have not produced any documents to prove the income of deceased, it would be just and fair compensation if the amount is reduced and rounded off to Rs.18,00,000/-. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.19,82,000/-

¶36

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.M.A(MD)No.651 of 2022

¶38

(Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand only) is reduced to Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh only).

¶39

The Insurance Company shall deposit Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P., on the file of claims Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares equally with proportionate accrued interests and costs, less the amount already withdrawn by them, if any, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the shares of the minor child in a nationalized bank until the child attains majority. The first respondent herein, who is the mother/guardian, is permitted to withdraw the interest amount once in three months. Once the minor claimant attain majority, he is permitted to withdraw his shares with accrued interests.

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

C.M.A(MD)No.651 of 2022

¶43

With the above said modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is party allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No cost.

¶44

07.02.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No jbr

¶45

¶46

1.MACT (Principal District Court), Pudukkottai.

¶47

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

¶48

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

C.M.A(MD)No.651 of 2022

¶50

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶51

jbr

¶52

JUDGMENT made in C.M.A(MD)No.651 of 2022

¶53

07.02.2024

¶54

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

The Branch Manager v. Sakila Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The Branch Manager v. Sakila Beevi

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

S. Maheswari, Vs The Managing Director

Ayyanan Vs v.Alagar

Manikandan Vs Narayanan

Shanmugam, Vs The Executive Engineer

P.Mookan Periyandi, Vs the Managing Directors Tamil Nadu

M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nachammai