SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 966

High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Versus
Vijayakumari & Others
C.M.A.No.545 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 24-02-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:S. Arunkumar, Advocate.
For the Caveator:V. Parivallal, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method and the principles for assessing compensation in cases of death under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:

Insurance Company - Motor Accident Compensation - SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, SYED BASHEER AHAMED AND OTHERS VS. MOHAMMED JAMEEL AND ANOTHER - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 168] - The court discussed the relevant factors for awarding compensation in cases of death, including the assessment of damages to compensate dependents, the multiplier method, and the principles for calculating pecuniary loss. The court considered the age and income of the deceased, modified the compensation amount, and directed the appellant-Insurance company to deposit the modified compensation with interest.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was involved in a motor traffic accident and the claimants, including the deceased's wife, two sons, and mother, sought compensation. The Tribunal held the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car and awarded compensation. The appellant-Insurance Company appealed questioning the quantum of compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the evidence and modified the compensation amount based on the deceased's age, income, and other factors. The appellant-Insurance company was directed to deposit the modified compensation with interest.

Issues: Quantum of compensation, application of multiplier method, assessment of damages

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the principles for assessing compensation in cases of death, including the multiplier method and factors for calculating pecuniary loss, and modified the compensation amount based on the evidence presented.

Final Decision: The appellant-Insurance company was directed to deposit the modified compensation with interest. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of with no costs.

Judgment :-

1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2010 made in MCOP No.188 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Gudiyatham.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, the counsel for the Caveator objected the admission and on consent by both parties, the appeal was taken up for final hearing.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The deceased one Chidambaram met with a motor traffic accident on 02.06.2006 at about 4.45 pm. The said deceased was proceeding as a rider in motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN23 AB 1235 with the pillion rider from South to North Direction and at that time, a Toyota Qualis car bearing Regn.No.TN02 P 7822, came in a rash and negligent manner and also in a high speed, and hit the two-wheeler. Due to the impact of the same, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body. He was immediately taken to CMC Hospital, Vellore and he died on 25.06.2006. The claimants are wife, two sons and mother of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. The said Qualis car was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN02 P 7822?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, what is the amount entitled to?

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Qualis car and awarded a compensation of Rs.18,91,600/- (Actual award amount is Rs.18,76,600/- and there is a totaling error) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:-


Loss of Income Rs.17,31,600/-

Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/-

Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-

Medical Expenses Rs. 1,20,000/-

-----------------

Rs.18,91,600/-

-----------------

Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, questioned only the quantum of compensation and vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. The counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in applying multiplier 13' and the correct multiplier to be adopted in the present case is 8'. Therefore, the sum of Rs.17,31,600/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is without any basis. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

5. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.

6. Heard the counsel and perused the document on record. On the side of the claimants/respondents, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P20 were marked. Wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Mr.Dayalan, the eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. One Mr.Devaraj, Assistant Headmaster, representative of the school was examined as PW3. Ex.P1, is the death summary. Ex.P2, is the copy of FIR dated 03.06.2006. Ex.P3, is the Postmortem report. Ex.P4, is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. Ex.P5, is the charge sheet. Ex.P6, is the legal heir certificate. Ex.P7, is the copy of the insurance policy. Ex.P8, is the LLR certificate of the deceased. Ex.P9, is the SSLC certificate of the deceased. Ex.P.10, is the salary certificate of the deceased. Ex.P11, is the copy of B.Sc. Certificate of the deceased.








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top