Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUDHAKAR, S. VAIDYANATHAN, JJ.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Indubai - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3384 of 2014, M.C.O.P. No. 3886 of 2012
Decided On : 23-02-2016
Accident – Death - Quantum of compensation awarded –Challenged - Fatal accident of a 21 year old M.B.B.S. student - Onabout 6.00 p.m., when deceased was driving a Maruthi Car bearing Registration No from south to north direction by western edge of 200 feet road, a Lorry bearing Registration No. came from opposite direction on wrong side of road in a rash and negligent manner, endangering public safety and dashed against Car, thereby taking away life of deceased - Alleging that the driver of the Lorry is solely responsible for accident and that owner of Lorry and the Insurance Company - Tribunal, taking note of oral evidence of P.W.1 and the corroborating evidence of P.W.2, an eye-witness to accident coupled with Ex.P1-F.I.R., held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing Registration No and awarded a sum as compensation to the claimants with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of filing of claim petition - Held, deceased was aged 21 years, pursuing III year M.B.B.S. Course - Had he been alive, he would have certainly reached a high position in life - Of course, claimants would have spent lot of money on education of their deceased son - But, at time of accident, he was still a student. Also, contention of Insurance Company that while arriving at compensation towards loss of pecuniary benefits, income tax has been deducted from income after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, has to be taken note of - In all, compensation awarded by Tribunal is modified and respondents 1 and 2/claimants are entitled to a sum as compensation - Rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 7.5% per annum from date of filing claim petition till date of deposit is confirmed - Break-up details of revised award would run - It is needless to state that if Insurance Company has not deposited any amount so far, it is directed to deposit entire award amount as ordered by this Court together with accrued interest to credit of M.C.O.P.No. on file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai, within a period of six (6) weeks from date of receipt a copy of this judgment - On such deposit being made, respondents 1 and 2/claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with above modification - Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants.
2. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai, by its judgment dated 25.09.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.3886 of 2012, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal.
3. This is a case of fatal accident of a 21 year old M.B.B.S. student, by name, T.Madhan Kumar. On 15.05.2002, about 6.00 p.m., when the deceased was driving a Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.TN-05-B-1234 from south to north direction by the western edge of 200 feet road, Mettukuppam, a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-49-X-0180, came from the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road in a rash and negligent manner, endangering public safety and dashed against the Maruthi Car, thereby taking away the life of the deceased. Alleging that the driver of the Lorry is solely responsible for the accident and that the owner of the Lorry and the Insurance Company with which the Lorry is insured are liable to pay compensation, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as compensation.
4. The owner of the Lorry, who is the 3rd respondent in this appeal remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company resisted the claim petition before the Tribunal questioning the liability of the accident and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants.
5. Before the Tribunal, in support of the claim, the 1st claimant, viz. Mr. T.Sudhakar Reddy was examined as P.W.1; an eye-witness to the accident, viz. Mr. N.Subramani was examined as P.W.2 and Exs. P1 to P9 were marked, the details of which are as follows:
| Ex.P-1 | Copy of FIR in Crime No.362/2002 registered at E-4, Maduravoyal Police Station, Maduravoyal |
| Ex.P-2 | Death Certificate |
| Ex.P-3 | Legal Heir Certificate |
| Ex.P-4 | Copy of Sketch |
| Ex.P-5 | Copy of Driving Licence of the deceased |
| Ex.P-6 | Postmortem Certificate |
| Ex.P7 | Death Report |
| Ex.P8 | Copy of MBBS Mark Sheet of the deceased |
| Ex.P9 | X-ray |
6. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
7. The Tribunal, taking note of the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the corroborating evidence of P.W.2, an eye-witness to the accident coupled with Ex.P1-F.I.R., held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-49-X-0180 and awarded a sum of Rs. 51,24,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, under the following heads:
| Loss of pecuniary benefits | Rs. 47,74,000.00 |
| Transportation to Hospital | Rs. 25,000.00 |
| Funeral expenses | Rs. 25,000.00 |
| Loss of Love and Affection | Rs. 1,00,000.00 |
| Loss of estate | Rs. 2,00,000.00 |
| Total | Rs. 51,24,000.00 |
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would intensely contend that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 75,000/-, thereby awarding an exorbitant sum of Rs. 47,74,000/- towards loss of pecuniary benefits. Also, he would contend that the Tribunal erred in deducting income tax after deducting personal expenses and that income tax ought to have been deducted on the income fixed and as such 30% ought to have been deducted towards income tax.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can by no means equal the loss of the deceased to the claimants, since the deceased was pursuing M.B.B.S. at the time of accident and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
