Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Murali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.12.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN C.M.A.NO.3426 OF 2021 AND C.M.P.NO.19775 OF 2021 Shriram General Insurance Co. Limited., 5F, 1st Floor, Sachin Plaza Reddiyar Block No.1, Salem Post and District.

... Appellant/2nd Respondent .Vs.

1. Murali ... 1st Respondent/1st Petitioner

2. Minor Yogashree ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Petitioner

3. Minor Poornima ... 3rd Respondent/3rd Petitioner

4. Minor Shivani ... 4th Respondent/4th Petitioner (2nd to 4th Respondents being Minors are represented by their Next Friend/Father Murali)

5. Karikalasolan ... 5th Respondent/1st Respondent PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award dated 8th day of March, 2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.192 of 2018, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Dharmapuri.

For Appellant :

Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy For RR 1 to 4 :

Mr.Amar D. Pandya

J U D G M E N T

Admit.

2. Since the respondents are on caveat and the Appeal lies in a very limited scope, the Appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

3. Heard Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company and Mr.Amar D. Pandya, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants.

4. Since the liability of the Insurance Company is not being questioned, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with.

5. The claimants sought for compensation for the death of wife of the first claimant and mother of the claimants 2, 3 and 4 in a motor accident that occurred on 17.01.2018. The deceased was aged about 22 years and she was working as accountant drawing a salary of Rs.14,500/- per month. The claimants thus sought for compensation of Rs.67,56,000/-. The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested and the deceased had also contributed to the accident. It is further contended by the Insurance Company that the quantum of compensation claimed is not realistic.

6. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on record concluded that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the offending vehicle, namely, Van bearing No.TN 29 AS 4512 insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company. On the quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- disbelieving the salary certificate produced as Ex.P-11. The Tribunal add 50% to the future prospectus and arrived at the provisional income of Rs.15,000/-. The annual income was thus calculated at Rs.1,80,000/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/4th for the personal expenses of the deceased and arrived at the annual loss of dependency at Rs.1,35,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, the Tribunal arrived at the pecuniary loss at Rs.24,30,000/-. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- towards conventional damages. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.26,20,000/-.

7. The Tribunal apportioned the compensation payable as follows:- The first petitioner/husband = Rs.11,20,800/- Minor petitioners 2 to 4 = Rs.5,00,000/- each

8. The first petitioner was permitted to withdraw 50% of his share with accrued interest and cost immediately. The remaining amount was directed to be invested in a Fixed Deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of three years and the first petitioner was permitted to withdraw the interest once in six months. The shares allotted to the minors were directed to kept in deposit till they attain majority and the first petitioner was permitted to withdraw the interest once in six months for maintenance of the minors.

9. Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal erred in adopting 50% for future prospectus. According to him, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680 [National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.], the future prospects allowable for 22 years old person working in a non Governmental organisation is only 40% and not 50%. The learned counsel has no quarrel either with the income fixed or the quantum of conventional damages awarded.

10. Mr.Amar D. Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would also agree that the quantum of future prospects must be only 40% and not 50%.

11. In view of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the compensation awarded for loss of dependency is worked out taking future prospects at 40%. Monthly income fixed at Rs.10,000/- add 40% towards future prospectus = Rs.14,000/- (10,000 + 4000) deduct 1/4th for personal expenses = Rs.10,500/- (14,000 - 3,500) Annual loss of dependency = 1,26,000 (10,500 x 12) Loss of dependency (multiplier '18') = Rs.22,68,000/- (1,26,000 x 18) The conventional damages of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.

Thus the total compensation payable would be Rs.24,58,000/-. The interest and cost awarded by the Tribunal are confirmed.

12. Coming to the apportionment, I am of the opinion that this reduction should not affect the minors' shares. Thus the compensation awarded is apportioned as follows:-

(i) The first petitioner/husband is allotted a sum of Rs.9,58,000/- with interest and costs awarded by the Tribunal. (ii) The minors will get a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each. The shares of the minors are directed to be deposited in an interest bearing fixed deposit in any one of the nationalised banks till they attain majority and the first petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest once in six months for maintenance of the minors. The first petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation that has been apportioned to him along with accrued interest and costs.

13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsg To The Special District Judge, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.

Copy To:- The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Chennai.

+1cc to Mr.M.Selvam, Advocate, S.R.No.6547 C.M.A.NO.3426 OF 2021 AND C.M.P.NO.19775 OF 2021 AD(CO) PBS/05/05/2022