M/S United India Ins., Co., Ltd.,Pondicherry v. V.Deivasigamani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.12.2020

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN C.M.A.No.709 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007 (Through Video Conferencing) M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, No.261, Nehru Street, Pondicherry. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs.

1.V.Deivasigamany 2.Anjalai ...Respondents 1 & 2/Petitioners 3.M.Lakshmanan 4.M/s.New India Assurance Co., Ltd., No.127-A, Thiru.vi.Ka Road, Cuddalore.

5.Soundararajan (R3 & R5 set exparte before the Tribunal) ... Respondents 3 to 5/ Respondents 1,3 & 5 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Decree and Judgment passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1341 of 2003 dated 05.03.2005 (Additional Sub Court) Cuddalore.

For Appellant : Ms.V.Renukadevi For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Sathiyakumar For R4 : Mr.K.Mohan

J U D G M E N T

The appellant Insurance company is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub Court) Cuddalore, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1341 of 2003.

2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- as compensation together with interest at 9% per annum, from the date of the claim petition, till the date of deposit, payable by the appellant - Insurance Company to the 1st and 2nd respondents who were the claimants before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition as against 3rd respondent and 4th respondents.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

4. The 1st and 2nd respondents are the parents of the deceased Sakthivel. The case of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal was that the deceased Sakthivel met with an accident on 21.04.2003 when he was coming with his friend on a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-31-D-9680 from south to north at Periyakanganankuppam, Cuddalore to Pondi Main Road, when the driver of the third respondent drove the insured bus bearing Reg.No.PY 01 K 9229 allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased Sakthivel who was riding the motorcycle fell down and suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased drove the motorcycle along with his two persons as pillion riders. Thus, there was a violation of the policy conditions. It was further submitted that the deceased was in a drunken state at the time of the accident and hit against the insured bus. It is submitted that the deceased himself was the tort-feasor.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further relied on the decision of this Court reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 7-A, Malaveli Street, Madurai-625 001 vs. 1. Rajalakshmi and 5 others, 2010(2) MWN 319 wherein it was held that when the deceased was a bachelor, the correct multipler to be adopted for determining the compensation would be with reference to the age of the mother.

7. The learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondentsclaimants submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation. He submits that the impugned Judgment and decree was well reasoned and requires no interference. He therefore prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the 1st and 2nd respondents and the 4th respondent - Insurance Company. I have

also perused the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment and Decree.

9.

The arguments that the deceased was riding the motorcycle in an inebriated conditions though pleaded before the Tribunal as a defence by the appellant Insurance Company, the appellant had not produced any evidence to substantiate the same before the Tribunal.

10. The Tribunal has considered the FIR- Ex.P.1, wherein, the complainant has stated that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the insured bus. Further, P.W.2 eye-witness in his deposition has also confirmed the same. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report marked as Ex.P2 also confirmed that the insured bus did not suffer from any technical or mechanical failure. The finding of fact rendered by the Tribunal thus stands concluded and the Tribunal being the ultimate finding authority, the findings rendered by the Tribunal cannot be disturbed in this appeal.

11. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merits in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the deceased was negligent and was a tortfeasor himself.

12.

The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.4,60,000/-. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the age of mother was relevant for determining the correct multiplier cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supeme Court reported in Sarla Verma (smt) and another vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was aged 27 years, 17 multiplier was to be adopted. As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. A further 40% was to be added towards future prospects in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be requantified.

13. The Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. The monthly income of R.3,000/- appears to be high in absence of any direct evidence. It is therefore quantified as Rs.2,500/-. The Tribunal has not added amounts towards the future prospectus and has wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the aforesaid income towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of half of the income as per the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court since the deceased was a bachelor.

14. Therefore, 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased future prospectus. At the same time, 50% is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged 27 years, the correct 17 multiplier to be applied and not 18 multiplier. In view of the same, I am inclined to modify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as follows:- Head and Calculation Compensation requantified by this Court Income of the deceased : Rs.2500/- Add: Future prospectus at 40% *: Rs.1,000/- ------------- : Rs.3,500/- Less: Personal expenses (3500 x 1⁄2) : Rs.1750/- ------------- : Rs.1,750/- Annual Income - 1,750 x 12 : Rs. 21,000/- Multiplier - 17 (21,000 x 17) : Rs.3,57,000/- Rs.3,57,000/- Loss of Love and Affection (10,000 x 2) Rs. 20,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 3,000/- Total Rs.3,85,000/-

15. Since the interest has been reduced from 9% to 7.5%, I am inclined to reduce the interest at 7.5%.

16. The appellant-Insurance Company is therefore directed to deposit the re-quantified amount of compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and costs, less any amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

17. On such deposit, the 1st and 2nd respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same together with interest and cost if any, equally, by filing suitable applications before the Tribunal.

18. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed with the above observations. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kkd To:- The Additional Sub Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.

Copy to The Section officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

C.M.A.No.709 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007 gp[co] srg 25/08/2021