← Library
Madras High CourtCMA(MD)/583/2018dismissed

M/S.Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Devi,W/O.Sivan

2024-06-25Honourable Mr Justice R.Vijayakumar7 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.06.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.M.A(MD)No.583 of 2018 and C.M.P(MD) No.6724 of 2018 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai - 2, Represented by its Branch Manager. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent -vs1. Devi

2. Selvaraj

3. Soundaraya

4. Ganapathy

5. Chelliah ... Respondents 1 to 5/ Claimants

6. K.A.Salim ... 6th Respondent/1st Respondent PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.11.2017, made in M.C.O.P.No.50 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Pudukkottai.

1/7

For Appellant : Mr.M.E.Ilango For Respondents : Mr.N.Balakrishnan for R1 to R4 : No appearance - for R6 : R5 - dismissed J U D G M E N T The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.50 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Pudukkottai, primarily, on the ground of negligence and quantum.

2. According to the claimants, the deceased was a driver of a National Permit Lorry. While he was driving the vehicle on 02.09.2014 at about 09.15 p.m., the lorry tyre had got burst and he had parked the vehicle on the left side of the road. While they were repairing the said lorry after observing all precautions, the lorry owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the parked lorry, in which, the driver of the parked lorry had sustained grievous injuries and he passed away. According to the claimants, the entire 2/7

negligence is on the part of the lorry owned by the first respondent in the claim petition. Therefore, the claimants have prayed for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) towards compensation.

3. The Insurance Company had filed a counter specifically contending that the vehicle was not parked with blinking parking lights and therefore, the negligence is on the part of the driver of the parked lorry and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on either side, had arrived at a finding that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the first respondent and has proceeded to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) per month. The Tribunal had ultimately arrived at a compensation of Rs.20,55,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand only). Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

3/7

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company, the deceased was the driver of the parked vehicle and he had parked the said vehicle without observing proper precautions. The parking lights were not blinking at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also. He further contended that the Tribunal was not right in fixing a sum of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) as notional income for the deceased person and there is no proper proof of income on the side of the claimants. Hence, he prayed for allowing this appeal.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants had contended that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the vehicle owned by the first respondent and therefore, the Tribunal was right in mulcting the liability on the Insurance Company. He further contended that the deceased was a professional heavy vehicle driver and therefore, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) per month need not be disturbed.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4/7

8. Admittedly the accident has taken place at about 09.15.p.m., on 02.09.2014, when the vehicle driven by the deceased person was parked. An FIR was lodged by the cleaner of the said parked vehicle, which is marked as Ex.P1. A perusal of Ex.P1, clearly indicates that the cleaner has specifically mentioned about the blinking of the precautionary lights placed behind the break down lorry. He had also mentioned that the side indicators have been switched on. Therefore, it is clear that the vehicle under repair was parked as per the statutory Rules and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased person.

9. As far as the issue relating to the quantum is concerned, the claimants have filed the driving license of the deceased person as Ex.P.10, which indicates that he is a heavy vehicle driver and therefore fixing a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as notional income of the driver for an accident that has taken place in the year 2014, cannot be considered to be excessive. 5/7

10. In view of the above said facts, there are no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

25.06.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Pudukkottai.

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

ebsi C.M.A(MD)No.583 of 2018 25.06.2024 7/7