Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Balakumar

Madras HC16 Aug 2024CMA(MD)/945/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident claim appeal over compensation awarded by the Thanjavur Tribunal for death of a one-year-three-month-old child. The insurer challenged quantum only; negligence finding was upheld but notional income reduced to Rs.30,000 per year using Meena Devi precedent, total compensation reduced from Rs.16,13,000 to Rs.5,60,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced and refixed at Rs.5,60,000; respondents permitted to withdraw as apportioned; appellant directed to deposit award amount.

The Branch Manager Vs Balakumar — Insurance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD).No.945 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON : 02.08.2024

¶4

DELIVERED ON : 16.08.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶7

C.M.A.(MD).No.945 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD).No.9976 of 2024

¶8

The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 85-A, KRA Hospital Building, Market Road, Thanjavur. ... Appellant/2^nd Respondent

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Balakumar

¶11

2.Suganya ... Respondents 1 & 2/Petitioners

¶12

3.Anbarasan ... 3^rd Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶13

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the

¶14

Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 31.10.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.625 of 2022 on the file of the Motor

¶15

Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Thanjavur.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.I.Robert Chandra Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Edin Brough for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Narayanan for R3

¶17

1/7

¶18

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

¶19

C.M.A.(MD).No.945 of 2024

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal has been directed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 31.10.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.625 of 2022 on the file of the

¶22

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Thanjavur.

¶23

2.The facts in brief:

¶24

On 13.03.2022 at about 04.00 p.m., the first petitioner was

¶25

riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 48 AN 5195, along with his wife and his child as pillion rider, on the Kumbakonam to Thiruvaiyaru Road, from East to West direction. At that time, the first respondent driving a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 68 F 5106 in rash and negligent manner, suddenly crossed the road and caused the accident. As a result of which, the claimant's daughter suffered injuries. She was taken to the Government Hospital, Kabisthalam, later to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. But, she died without responding to the treatment on 15.03.2022. Over which, a case in Crime No.134 of 2022 was registered against the first respondent's vehicle driver. Claiming compensation amount of Rs.25,00,000/- the claim application was filed.

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

C.M.A.(MD).No.945 of 2024

¶29

3.That was resisted by the Insurance company, by filing counter, contending that the occurrence took place because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the first petitioner's vehicle's driver.

¶30

4.Regarding the compensation amount, the age of the deceased was fixed as one year three months. Multiplier 15 was adopted and loss of dependency was fixed at Rs.15,00,000/-. To that the customary amounts were added and finally the Tribunal awarded Rs.16,13,000 as total compensation.

¶31

5.Against which, this appeal is preferred by the insurance company and the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he disputed the quantum. The age of the deceased was only 1 year 3 months at the time of the occurrence. So the multiplier was wrongly adopted as 15. The monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is also not proper.

¶32

6.Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent would submit

¶33

that reasonable compensation was fixed by the Tribunal. So it requires no

¶34

3/7

¶35

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

¶36

C.M.A.(MD).No.945 of 2024

¶37

interference.

¶38

7.Regarding the first aspect of negligence, no argument was

¶39

advanced by the appellant herein. It was contended by the appellant before the Tribunal that the first claimant did not have proper driving licence. Without driving licence, he invited the accident. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence as against the 1^st petitioner who was riding the two wheeler without having driving licence. The deceased pillion rider cannot be fastened with liability of contributory negligence. Moreover, as mentioned in the petition and in the complaint before the police station, it is seen that the first claimant has stated that the first respondent's vehicle's driver suddenly crossed the road and caused the accident. On that ground only, the Tribunal has recorded the findings. In the circumstances of the case, I find that no interference is called for in that finding.

¶40

8.Regarding the second aspect of compensation, it is seen that the

¶41

Tribunal has taken Rs.1,00,000/- as the annual notional income of the deceased. She was only a child. So taking Rs.1,00,000/- as notional

¶42

4/7

¶43

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

¶44

C.M.A.(MD).No.945 of 2024

¶45

income per year may not be proper and appropriate. In the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto Alias Nemchand Mahto and others reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 the Honourable Supreme Court, by taking into account the death of the children between the age group of 7, 12 and 15 years, taken the annual notional income as Rs.30,000/-. Multiplier 15 was adopted. In view of the above, it is seen that Multiplier 15 was correctly taken by the trial Court. But, Rs.1,00,000/- as mentioned above is not proper. So here the notional income was taken as Rs.30,000/- per year and to that multiplier 15 was adopted. By which, the loss of income is fixed as Rs.4,50,000/-. To which other customary amounts added by the Tribunal is remain unchanged.

¶46

9.Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced and refixed as follows:

¶47

1.Loss of Income = Rs.4,50,000/2.Filial consortium = Rs. 80,000/3.Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000/4.Loss of Estate = Rs. 15,000/= Rs.5,60,000/-

¶48

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

¶49

5/7

¶50

C.M.A.(MD).No.945 of 2024

¶51

10.Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the amount in the apportion as ordered by the Tribunal. The appellant is directed to deposit the above said award amount, immediately, if not deposited. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. There is no order as to costs.

¶52

16.08.2024

¶53

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM

¶54

¶55

1.The District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Thanjavur.

¶56

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶57

6/7

¶58

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

¶59

C.M.A.(MD).No.945 of 2024

¶60

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

¶61

¶62

C.M.A.(MD).No.945 of 2024

¶63

16.08.2024

¶64

7/7

¶65

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

The Branch Manager v. Balakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Balakumar

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 General Manager Vs Nalini kumari

M.Lakshmipraba @ Madhubala Vs B.Eswaran

G.Balasubramanian Vs The Inspector of Police

Murugavel @ Murugan Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Police

Miruthyun Jeyan Vs The Inspector of Police

Mariyammal Vs Moses