Dismissed

The Branch Manager, v. Kannagi

Madras HC9 Aug 2024CMA(MD)/886/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madurai (Madurai Bench) heard insurance appeals against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awards. The Court held that violation of policy conditions does not exonerate the insurer from paying third-party claims, directing payment and recovery from the insured. The Court enhanced the death compensation award by incorporating future prospects and correcting personal expense deductions

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed. Death compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,72,600/-; injury compensation confirmed at Rs. 10,000/-.

The Branch Manager, Vs Kannagi — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 1 of 2013

¶7

The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Madurai.

¶8

... Appellant in both C.M.As.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Kannagi W/o.Late Balu

¶11

2.Minor Naveen S/o.Late Balu

¶12

3.Minor Suria S/o.Late Balu

¶13

4.Minor Manikandan S/o.Late Balu

¶14

5.Kaliamoorthy (Died) S/o.Chinnaiyan

¶15

6.Andal W/o.Kaliamoorthy

¶16

... R1 to R6 in C.M.A.(MD) No.886/13

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 1 of 13_

¶18

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶19

7.Soundarajan S/o.Vaithilingam

¶20

... R1 in C.M.A.(MD) No.887/13

¶21

8.Gopi S/o.Rasu

¶22

... R7 in C.M.A.(MD) No.886/13 & R2 in C.M.A.(MD) No.887/13

¶23

[R5 in C.M.A(MD) No.886 of 2013 died. R1 to R4 & R6 in C.M.A.(MD) No.886 of 2013, who are already on record, were recorded as legal heirs of R5 vide order of this dated 01.08.2024]

¶24

Common Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to set aside the Award of Rs. 4,23,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Only) in M.C.O.P.NO.408 of 2004 dated 24.02.2006 and the Award of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2024 dated 24.02.2006, on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Kumbakonam.

¶25

For Appellant in both C.M.As. : Mr.Prabhakaran Standing Counsel

¶26

For R1 to R6 in C.M.A.(MD) No.886/13 : Mr.P.Prabhakaran

¶27

For R1 in C.M.A.(MD) No.887/13 : No appearance

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 2 of 13_

¶29

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶30

For R7 in C.M.A.(MD) No.886/13 & For R2 in C.M.A.(MD) No.887/13 : No appearance

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

These two appeals arose from claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.408 & 608 of 2004 filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Kumbakonam, due to the death and injury of two individuals.

¶34

M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004 was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Balu who died in the accident. M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2004 was filed by the injured claimant stating that he has sustained injuries in the accident.

¶35

C.M.A.(MD) No.886 of 2013 has been filed challenging the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004. C.M.A.(MD) No.608 of 2013 has been filed challenging the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.Nos.608 of 2004.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 3 of 13_

¶37

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶38

In both cases, the claimants had stated that on 02.05.2004, while

¶39

the deceased Balu and the injured claimant were travelling along with others in a tractor bearing Registration No.TN-31-T-7587 insured with the appellant Insurance Company, the driver of the tractor had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, as result of which, the tractor capsized; and that in the accident, the said Balu died on the spot and others had sustained grievous injuries.

¶40

The owner of the tractor who was shown as the first respondent in both claim petitions had filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petitions and stating that he did not permit the deceased and others to travel in the tractor.

¶41

The appellant Insurance Company had filed counter before the Tribunal stating that the owner of the tractor had violated the policy conditions by taking the passengers in the tractor and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation and in any case, the claimants have not established that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 4 of 13_

¶43

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶44

Before the Tribunal, in all the claims petitions including

¶45

M.C.O.P.Nos.408 & 608 of 2004, five witnesses were examined. The first claimant in M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004 who is the wife of the deceased Balu was examined as P.W.1. The insured claimant in M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2004 was examined as P.W.3. On the side of all the claimants, Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. The appellant Insurance Company has examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R3 to show that the owner of the tractor had violated the policy conditions.

¶46

The Tribunal after taking into consideration of oral and documentary evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,23,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004 which is under challenge in C.M.A.(MD) No. 886 of 2013 and Rs.10,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2004 which is under challenge in C.M.A.(MD) No.887 of 2013.

¶47

The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and in any case, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the appellant to pay and recover the compensation and should have fully exonerated the appellant Insurance Company.

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 5 of 13_

¶49

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶50

The learned counsel for the first to sixth respondents in C.M.A.

¶51

(MD) No.886 of 2013 who are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004,

¶52

per contra, submitted that even assuming that there is a violation of policy condition, the direction to the appellant to make the payment and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is in accordance with law.

¶53

11.The learned counsel for the claimants/first to sixth respondents also pointed out that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was very meagre and this Court while considering the award may enhance the compensation as the method adopted by the Tribunal while calculating the compensation is erroneous. He submitted that the future prospects and the compensation under the head of loss of consortium were not awarded by the Tribunal.

¶54

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions.

¶55

The questions involved in the instant appeals are as follows:-

¶56

i. Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay and recover the compensation from the owner of the tractor?

¶57

ii. Whether the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation?

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 6 of 13_

¶59

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶60

As regards the first question, it is seen that the owner of the

¶61

tractor had admittedly violated the policy conditions as could be seen from the claim petitions and also the policy conditions which have been incorporated in Ex.R1. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the owner of the tractor had violated the conditions is in accordance with law. However, the question is whether the appellant Insurance Company should be exonerated. It is well settled law that when there is violation of

¶62

policy conditions, the Insurance Company can be directed to pay and recover the amount from the insured person/policy holder. Therefore, this Court finds that the finding of the Tribunal in that regard does not call for any interference.

¶63

As regards the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004 which pertains to the death of Balu, it is seen that there were six original claimants, of whom one is no more.

¶64

The Tribunal had fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month on the basis of statement made in the claim petition. It is noticed that the deceased was only 35 years old. However, the Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospects. The Tribunal has also

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 7 of 13_

¶66

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶67

deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses although there were more than 4 dependants. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenses.

¶68

Since the one of the claimants died, this Court enhances the compensation under the head of loss of love and affection to the remaining 5 claimants at Rs.40,000/- each. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate. This Courts awards a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. The compensation awarded towards funeral expenses is meagre which is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-.

¶69

Therefore, though the claimants have not challenged the award, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, this Court is of the view that the compensation can be enhanced in the following manner:-

¶70

Heads and Calculation Amount

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 8 of 13_

¶72

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶73

Loss of Dependency :-
(Age of the deceased - 35)
Notional Monthly Income : Rs.3,000/-
Add: Future Prospects at 40% [Rs.3,000/- x 40/100] : Rs.1,200/- --------------- : Rs.4,200/-
Less : Personal Expenses at 1/4^th [4,200 x 1/4] : Rs.1,050/- ---------------- : Rs.3,150/-
Annual contribution to the family [Rs.3,150/- x 12] - Rs.37,800/-
Multiplier - 17 [37,800 x 17] - Rs.6,42,600/-	Rs.6,42,600/-
Loss of Consortium [Rs.40,000/- x 5]	Rs.2,00,000/-
Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Total	Rs.8,72,600/-

¶74

*Sl.* No	*Description*	*Amount* *awarded by* *the Tribunal*	*Amount* *awarded by* *this Court*	*Award* *confirmed,* *enhanced or* *granted*
1	Loss of Dependency	Rs.4,08,000/-	Rs.6,42,600/-	Enhanced
2	Loss of Love and Affection	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs.2,00,000/-	Enhanced
3	Loss of Estate	-	Rs. 15,000/-	Granted
4	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 5,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-	Enhanced
	Total	Rs.4,23,000/-	Rs.8,72,600/-	Enhanced by Rs.4,49,600/-

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 9 of 13_

¶76

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶77

As regards the compensation awarded to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2004, this court finds that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the injuries suffered by him which is just and reasonable and is therefore confirmed.

¶78

The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2004 together with interest and proportionate costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶79

On such deposit, the first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.887 of 2013/claimant in M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2004 is permitted to withdraw the same together with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.

¶80

The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.8,72,600/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, after deducting the amount already

¶81

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 10 of 13_

¶82

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶83

deposited if any, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶84

The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004 are entitled to compensation, interest, and costs in the same proportion ordered by the Tribunal. Since the fifth claimant in M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004 has died, the remaining claimants are entitled to receive his share equally.

¶85

The first and sixth claimants in M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004/ first and sixth respondents in C.M.A.(MD) No.886 of 2013 are permitted to withdraw their shares, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.

¶86

The second to fourth claimants in M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004/ second to fourth respondents in C.M.A.(MD) No.886 of 2013 were minor when the claim petition was filed in the year 2004. They would have attained the age of majority now. Hence, they are directed to file appropriate application for recording their majority and to withdraw their shares.

¶87

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

¶88

_____________ Page No. 11 of 13_

¶89

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶90

The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.408 of 2004/the first to sixth

¶91

respondents in C.M.A.(MD) No.886 of 2013 are directed to pay the court fee for the enhanced amount of compensation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶92

In the result, both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶93

09.08.2024

¶94

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶95

JEN

¶96

Copy To:

¶97

The Principal Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kumbakonam.

¶98

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 12 of 13_

¶99

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013

¶100

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶101

JEN

¶102

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.886 & 887 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 1 of 2013

¶103

09.08.2024

¶104

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 13 of 13_

The Branch Manager, v. Kannagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Kannagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Anbalagan Vs the Inspector General of

P.Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector General of

M.Sherin Jahan Vs M.Masood Khan

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Vs Navamani

Dhandapani Vs The President

The Branch Manager Vs Ganesh Kumar