← Library
Madras High CourtCMA(MD)/302/2009dismissed

General Manager v. Vairaperumal

2020-12-14Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 14.12.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM General Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., Trichy Branch, 1/33, Praminant Road, Cantonment, Trichy-1.

.. Appellant/Respondent-2 vs.

1.Vairaperumal 2.Malaichamy 3.Dhanapackiyam ..Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners 4.Sundaramoorthy ..Respondent 4/Respondent 1 Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the award and decree dated 11.08.2005 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1489 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Trichy.

For Appellant :Mr.J.S.Murali For R2 & R3 :Mr.A.Saravanan For R1 & R4 :Dismissed vide Court Order dated 21.06.2017

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Trichy passed in M.C.O.P.No.1489 of 2001, dated 11.08.2005.

2. This is a case of fatal accident. The deceased was a bachelor aged about 23 years at the time of accident. The claimants are parents and sister of the deceased. It is their case that the deceased was a driver by profession and he was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. However, on 09.12.2000 when he was walking on Trichy-Madurai National Highways, he was hit by a speedy lorry bearing Registration No.TNS-8458 and immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Trichy and he died on 10.12.2000. The claimants sought total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- contending that the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident. 1/3

3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant/Insurance Company disputing the involvement of the lorry in the accident and also stated that the claim was excessive.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.2-Rajappa, who was the defacto complainant in Criminal Case in Cr.No.256 of 2000, gave evidence stating that the lorry bearing Registration No.TNS-8458 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. During the investigation, the driver of the lorry, namely, Lawrence was arrested by the police and he was also prosecuted before the Criminal Court, it appears he pleaded guilty and also paid the fine amount. Ex.P3 is the Final Report and Ex.P4 is the Judgment of the Criminal Court in C.C.No.16 of 2001. Ex.P5 is the Insurance Policy, it shows that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. Though the Insurance Company examined R.W.1, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police, says that that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and he was not in a position to prove the same. On the other hand, his evidence was in favour of the claimants. So, the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the driver of the lorry, is confirmed.

6. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was a driver and the same has been proved through Ex.P7 driving licence. According to the claimants, the deceased was 23 years old and his monthly earning was Rs.5,000/-, however, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month and applied multiplier '10' to fix the loss of income. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of income. In addition, Rs.20,000/- was awarded for loss of love and affection. Rs.5,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses.

In total, Rs.2,65,000/- was awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.,

7. It is relevant to note that as per the decision of the SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2009) 4 MLJ 997, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% for personal expenses as the deceased was bachelor and he is also entitled for addition of 40% for future prospects as per the case of 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi]. If the same are included, the claimants may be entitled for higher compensation, but unfortunately, they did not file any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and it is confirmed. 2/3

8. In that view, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, as devoid of merits. Since the appeal is dismissed, the appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 3/Claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal, by making necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) am Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To 1.The Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Trichy.

2.The Record Keeper,(2 copies) Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.J.S.Murali, Advocate Sr.No.25627 JUDGMENT MADE IN 14.12.2020 VB (19.01.2021) 3P 5C 3/3