The United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Valliyammal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.12.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN C.M.A.NO.1667 OF 2020 AND C.M.P.NO.12277 OF 2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Motor III Party Claims Office, Shilling Buildings, 4th Floor, No.134, Greams Road, Chennai - 6.
... Appellant/2nd Respondent .Vs.
1. Valliyammal
2. Anitha (minor)
3. Vishal (minor)
4. Gokul (minor)
5. Muniammal ... Respondents/Petitioners Minors are Rep. by mother and next friend Valliammal, all are residing at No.3/537, Anna Street, Rajanagaram, Mottur Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur Dt. - 631 102.
6. Mr.Vinod Kondaiah, No.54, Venkataray Pillai Street, Sholinghur, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District - 631 102.
... Respondent/1st Respondent PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree dated 17.12.2019 made in MCOP No.5536 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (In the II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
For Appellant :
Mr.D.Bhaskaran For Respondents :
Mr.Richard Suresh Kumar For Mr.K.Sivakumar For R1 to R5
J U D G M E N T
Feeling aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurance company is before this Court with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal in brief is as follows :- The deceased by name Thulasi, aged about 36 years, and he was working as a Weaver. On 15.08.2017 at about 01.00 p.m. while he was riding his motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN-20 BF-7146, in Thirutani to R.K. Pet High Road, Kumaarakuppam, a stage carriage bus bearing Regn. No.TN-23 L-9909 owned by the 1st respondent, which was insured with the 2nd respondent came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of deceased, in which, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are wife, and children of deceased, have filed the claim petition, claiming the compensation of Rs.70,00,000/-, they have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. The 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The appellant insurance company contested the claim petition on the ground that the accident was taken place due to the negligence of deceased and no liability would be fixed on the insurance company. They have also disputed the monthly income of deceased and further stated that the compensation claimed by the claimants are highly excessive and speculative.
4. Before the tribunal, the claimants have examined three witnesses and marked as many as 14 documents as Ex.P1 to P14. On the side of respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the materials available on record, has held that the accident has been taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, and adding 40% of monthly income towards future prospects, arrived the notional monthly income of deceased at Rs.2,52,000/-. After
deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the Tribunal has arrived the annual contribution of deceased as Rs.1,89,000/- and applying the multiplier of 15, the tribunal has arrived the loss of dependency as Rs.28,35,000/-. In respect of other conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards parental consortium, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards filial consortium and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.33,90,000/- as total compensation. Aggrieved over the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant insurance company is before this Court with this appeal.
6. Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for appellant insurance company would contend that the deceased was working as a Weaver and the accident was taken place in the year 2017. Without any evidence whatsoever, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income as Rs.15,000/-, which is on higher side. So far as other conventional heads, the Tribunal after awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, awarded an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards parental consortium, and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards filial consortium, which are not permissible under law. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd., /vs/ Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017
(16) SCC 680, and in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others in Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dated 30.06.2020, and contended that the wife is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, minor children are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium, and mother is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium, however, altogether, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,65,000/- towards consortium and a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- towards loss of love and affection. According to the learned counsel, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive.
7. Mr.Richard Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 would submit that, the deceased was a weaver, a skilled labour. The accident has taken place in the year 2017. The Tribunal, after considering all those circumstances, and also considering the number of dependants viz., widow, minor children and mother, has rightly fixed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- and awarded compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation and there is no reason to interfere with it.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for appellant as well as respondents 1 to 4 and perused the records.
9. The deceased was a 36 years old Weaver, and a skilled labour. The accident was taken place in the year 2017. Being a skilled labour, he could easily earn Rs.600/- per day and assuming that he will work for 25 days a month, he will earn Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal considering those circumstances, fixed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.15,000/-. Considering the above peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and also from the perusal of materials available on record, this Court is of the view that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side. So far as adding of future prospects, deduction and also multiplier, the Tribunal has rightly followed the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) and also in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd., /vs/ Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017
(16) SCC 680, and arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.28,35,000/-. This Court finds no error in it.
10. The next serious issue raised by the learned counsel appearing for appellant is awarding of consortium. Now, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance CO.Ltd., /vs/ Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, has held that a maximum sum of Rs.40,000/- can be granted towards consortium. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others in Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dated 30.06.2020, so far as awarding of compensation towards consortium, has held that children are entitled for parental consortium and parents of deceased also entitled for filial consortium. But, the Tribunal, without considering the same, has awarded a sum of Rs.
5,40,000/- towards consortium as well as loss of love and affection, which is not permissible under law. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. The 1st claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, minor children viz., claimants 2 to 4 are entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium, and 5th claimant, mother of deceased, is also entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. That apart, the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
11. In view of the above, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows :- Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Award confirmed or enhanced Amount awarded by this Court Sl.
No.
Headings Rs.
Loss of dependency 28,35,000 28,35,000 confirmed Loss of consortium 40,000 40,000 confirmed Loss of love and affection 1,75,000 Nil Parental consortium 3,00,0 1,20,000 reduced Filial consortium 25,000 40,000 enhanced Funeral expenses 15,000 15,000 confirmed Loss of estate 15,000 granted Total 33,90,000 30,65,000 reduced Totally, the respondents 1 to 5 are entitled to get only a sum of Rs.30,65,000/- instead of Rs.33,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.33,90,000/- is hereby reduced to Rs.30,65,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.5536 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 5/claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants are entitled to refund of Court fee, in any, on the reduced amount of compensation now determined by this Court. As far as the share of minor appellants viz.
fixed deposit scheme until the minors attain majority and the interest thereon shall be withdrawn by minor appellants' mother, once in three months. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpp To 1.
The II Court of Small Causes, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
2.
The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.K.Sivakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.41608 C.M.A.NO.1667 OF 2020 AND C.M.P.NO.12277 OF 2020 AJS(CO) PBS/19/11/2021