M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Valliyammal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2019 C O R A M:
THE HONOURABLE TMT. JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM C.M.A.No.2023 of 2015 M/s. Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co.Ltd. Sundaram Towers, No. 45 & 46 Whites Road, Chennai-600 014.
..Appellant/2nd Respondent in Tribunal below Vs.
1. Valliyammal
2. Ayyanar
3. Poorani
4. Arumugam
5. Hamsa
6. P. Boopathi
...Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 5 and
1st Respondent in Tribunal below PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act against the Judgment and decree dated 06.02.2015 passed in MCOP. No. 1148 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr. E.Rajadurai For Respondents : M/s R.Kalaiarasan -R1 to R5
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 06.02.2015 passed in MCOP. No. 1148 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
Brief facts leading to the claim application are as follows;
3.1. On 13.11.2012 at about 19.30 hrs, the deceased was on duty as Security at Pallikaranai Mothers School. At that time, the Dost Goods Vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN22 CS 0115 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering the public safety came at a dangerous speed and hit against the deceased who was standing in Velachery main road, south to north direction. Due to which the deceased fell down and suffered serious head injuries and died later in the hospital. The 1st respondent and 2nd respondents being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are vicariously
liable to pay compensation. The petitioners being legal heirs of the deceased have claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation.
3.2. The Insurance Company in the counter statement had denied the mode of the accident as narrated by the claimants in the claim petition. The compensation claimed under various heads were also denied as excessive and possession of the valid driving licence by the driver of the said vehicle was also denied in the counter statement.
3.3. The tribunal after analysing evidence and documents has concluded that the death occurred only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent's vehicle driver and being the insurer of the said vehicle, the tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs,8,11,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved against the liability and compensation awarded by the tribunal, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal to set aside the same.
4. Heard both sides and perused the documents available on record.
5. On perusal of records, it is seen that the deceased was aged about 60 years as per the post mortem certificate. It is also seen as per the evidence of the claimants, the deceased was working as a Security and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, to that effect, PW2-eye witness was examined. Hence by considering the age and occupation of the deceased, the tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- and determined the loss of income.
6. The grievance of the appellant is that sum of awarded under head 'Loss of Consortium' to the 1st petitioner at Rs.1,00,000/- is highly excessive and and compensation awarded to the claimants who are all major and also not dependent to the deceased is also not reasonable. The total compensation awarded by the tribunal, which is more that the claim of the claimants is also not fair, without any justification.
7. Though no rebuttal evidence has been let in on the behalf of the appellant before the tribunal to disprove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle, upon which, the tribunal has fixed the liability on this appellant, this Court by considering the arguments of the appellant and also the age and occupation of the deceased and the documents placed before the tribunal to substantiate the claim, inclined to modify the compensation reasonably. It is seen that the amount awarded by the tribunal under certain heads are excessive, hence this Court modify the amount under heads 1. Funeral expenses, 2. Loss of Consortium to the 1st petitioner, 3. Loss of companionship to the
petitioners.
8. It is seen that the sum awarded under the had loss of pecuniary benefits at Rs.4,86,000/- by taking monthly income at Rs.6000/- and by adopting multiplier is proper,hence the same is confirmed. Further, the tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of estate, hence this Court grants a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head 'Loss of Estate". Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified by this Court as below;
Head Sum awarded by the tribunal Sum modified by this Court Loss of pecuniary benefits 4,86,000 4,86,000 Loss of Consortium to the 1st petitioner 1,00,000 40,000 Loss of companionship to the petitioners 2,00,000 80,000 Funeral expenses 25,000 15,000 Loss of estate -- 15,000 Total 8,11,000 6,36,000 Thus the claimants are entitled to only a sum of Rs.6,36,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum.
9. In the result (i). The Civil Miscellaneous is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition if any, is closed.
(ii). From the compensation of Rs.6,36,000/-, the 1st respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,36,000/- and the respondents 2 to 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- each. (iii) Since it is represented by the appellant/Insurance Company that they have deposited a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- before the tribunal, they are permitted to withdraw the remaining amount. the Tribunal shall transfer the modified amount to the claimants' bank account through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereon.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ak
To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
Copy To The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.N.M. Muthurajan, Advocate SR.No.47940 +1cc to Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate SR.No.48809 C.M.A.No. 2023 of 2015 BP(CO) GMY(09/01/2020)