Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. Sasidharan, Abdul Quddhose, JJ.
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
R. Sasikala Devi & Others - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 1382 of 2019
Decided On : 04-09-2019
For the Appellant : Mohan Babu for M/s. M.B. Gopalan Associates, Advs.
For the Respondents: K. Varadha Kamaraj, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to adjust compensation based on legal precedents and the specific application of the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Shethi case.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Appeal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which partly allowed the claim petition for compensation due to a fatal accident involving a Tata Indica Car and a motorcycle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the insured car, and made adjustments to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on legal precedents.
Issues: The issues involved the quantum of compensation and the finding of negligence on the part of the insured vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the finding of negligence and adjusted the compensation based on legal precedents, specifically citing the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Shethi case.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the total compensation amount was modified to Rs.81,78,425 instead of Rs.83,08,425, with directions for the Insurance Company to deposit the revised amount within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
Abdul Quddhose, J.
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in MCOP.No.286 of 2016 dated 14.08.2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and decree dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee in MCOP.No.286 of 2016
Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal:
2. A Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.TN20-CY-5798 owned by the fifth respondent and insured with the Appellant collided with a motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-10-AR-9490 on 06.03.2016 in which a person by name V.Rajaraman was riding. The said accident caused severe head injury, multiple rib fractures, scapular Fracture, Multiple and grievous injuries to V.Rajaraman which resulted in his death on 10.03.2016. The respondents 1 to 4 who are the dependents of the deceased preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of Rajaraman seeking a compensation of Rs.1,10,50,000/- which was restricted to Rs.1,00,00,000/- by the claimants.
3. By an award dated 14.08.2018 in MCOP No.286 of 2016, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee partly allowed the claim petition and directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.83,08,425/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.
4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as well as the adverse finding of negligence on the insured vehicle, the instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company.
5. Heard Mr.R.Mohan Babu, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.
6. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award as well as the evidence and materials available on record.
7. Before the Tribunal, 21 documents were produced on the side of the respondents 1 to 4 which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 and three witnesses were examined viz., PW1- Sasikala Devi, the wife of the deceased, PW2- A.Hilda, the employer of the deceased and PW3-Kathikeyan, an eye witness. On the side of the Appellant, no document was marked. But only one witness was examined viz., RW1-Kurunthalingam, the legal manager of the 2nd respondent company).
8. Though FIR (Ex.P1) has been registered against the deceased, the charge sheet (Ex.P16) has been filed only against the driver of the insured car namely, Tata indica car bearing registration No.TN 20 CY 5798. No contra evidence has been produced by the Appellant insurance company to disprove the charge sheet filed by the Police. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record including Ex.P5- Postmortem Report and Ex.P16 – Charge Sheet, has rightly given a finding that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured Car. Therefore, the challenge by the Appellant to the said finding is unsustainable.
9. The deceased Rajaraman was working as Operations Manager in M/s Call Street Global Services at the time of the accident. His salary certificate was marked as Ex.P20. As per Ex.P20, the gross salary of the deceased Rajaraman for the month of February 2016 was Rs.46,200/- and after deductions his net salary was Rs.44,217/-. The Senior Manager of Call Street Global Services Ms. A.Hilda was examined as PW2 and has corroborated the salary certificate Ex.P20. The Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident at Rs.44,217/- based on Ex.P20 salary certificate which was corroborated by PW2. The deceased at the time of the acci
