Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
S. Vani and Others – Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 2041, 2042, 2046 of 2019, C.M.P. Nos. 7364, 7371, 7379 of 2019
Decided On : 27-06-2019
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 147 - Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 - Rule 15(1) - Scope of Workmen Compensation Act 1923 - Motor Accidents Claims - Drove car in a rash and negligent manner – Claim of compensation - According to claimant while she along with her husband son mother-in-law and other relatives were returning in car belonging to her deceased husband driver of car/3rd respondent in claim petitions who is brother-in-law of claimant drove car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against lorry parked in a negligent manner near Government School - 1st respondent is owner of lorry 2nd respondent is insurer of lorry 3rd respondent is driver of car and 4th respondent is insurer of car - In accident claimants husband died on spot - Claimant and her minor son sustained severe injuries and they were taken to Government Hospital - Her son died in Hospital - Claimant took treatment as in-patient in Government Hospital and was taken to BM Hospital Chennai - Then she was shifted to KMCH Erode and then she took treatment in Nursing Home - Claimant filed following claim petitions claiming compensation for injuries sustained by her and for death of her husband and son who died in accident that took place – Held, As far as quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal in MCOP is concerned claimant has contended that deceased minor was aged years and was studying UKG - Tribunal has fixed a sum per annum and applied multiplier as per Schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act - Hobble Apex Court and this Court considering passage of time after passing of II Schedule in Motor Vehicles Act has fixed annual income of minor at per annum depending upon facts of each case - This court in one of case fixed a sum per annum for deceased minor - Considering age of minor in present case annual income of deceased minor - Tribunal erred in deducting towards personal expenses and hence same is set aside – Thus amount awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified - In addition to above Tribunal has awarded each under heads of non-pecuniary loss and future prospects - Said amounts are liable to be set aside and they are hereby set aside - A sum awarded by Tribunal towards funeral expenses is meager and same is enhanced - Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate and this Court awards under those heads respectively - In accident deceased minor sustained grievous injuries and was taken to hospital but inspire of treatment he died - Considering said fact sum awarded by Tribunal towards transportation is meager and hence same is enhanced – Thus compensation awarded by Tribunal is modified – Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the award dated 15.07.2015 made in M.C.O.P. Nos. 434, 432 and 433 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Erode.
2. All these three appeals arise out of the same accident and common award and hence they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as per their respective ranks in the claim petitions for the sake of convenience.
3. The appellant/Insurance Company is 4th respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos. 434, 432 and 433 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Erode.
4. According to the claimant, on 19.02.2012, while she along with her husband, son, mother-in-law and other relatives were returning from Tirupathi in the car belonging to her deceased husband, the driver of the car/3rd respondent in the claim petitions who is the brother-in-law of the claimant, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry parked in a negligent manner near the Government School at Chinnapattu. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry, 2nd respondent is the insurer of the lorry, 3rd respondent is the driver of the car and the 4th respondent is the insurer of the car. In the accident, the claimant's husband died on the spot. The claimant and her minor son sustained severe injuries and they were taken to Government Hospital, Utthukottai. Her son died in the Hospital. The claimant took treatment as in-patient in the Government Hospital, Utthukottai and was taken to BM Hospital, Chennai. Then she was shifted to KMCH, Erode and then she took treatment in Thirumurugan Nursing Home, Kodumudi. The claimant filed the following claim petitions, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her and for the death of her husband and son who died in the accident that took place on 19.02.2012:
| S. No. | CMA No. | Description | MCOP No. and Claim Amount |
| 1. | 2042/2019 | Death of her husband | 432 of 2012 |
| Rs. 85,00,000/- | |||
| 2. | 2046/2019 | Death of her minor son | 433 of 2012 |
| Rs. 5,00,000/- | |||
| 3. | 2041/2019 | Injuries sustained by her in the accident | 434 of 2012 |
| Rs. 5,00,000/- |
She has given details of employment of her husband and the salary earned by him. She has furnished the details of the injuries sustained by her and the particulars for claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The son of the claimant was aged 5 years and was studying in UKG in Nazareth Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Avadi, Chennai, at the time of accident. The claimant contended that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car/3rd respondent and negligent parking by the driver of the lorry which was parked without any signal in the middle of the road. Therefore, she claimed compensation from all the four respondents.
5. The 1st respondent (owner of the lorry) filed counter statement and contended that the accident was not due to negligent parking by the driver of the lorry. The lorry was parked after placing red flags in the front and back side and stones were laid around the lorry. The accident has occurred in a straight road and the 3rd respondent could have seen the parked lorry even half a kilo metre away from the place of accident. The accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car. The driver of the lorry had valid driving license at the time of the accident. The lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent and if any liability is fastened on the 1st respondent, only the 2nd respondent as insurer of the lorry has to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions against the 1st respondent.
6. The 2nd respondent (insurer of the lorry) filed counter statement and contended that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by
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
