Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Third Party Claims Cell, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
N.S. Indrica & Others - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 670 of 2019 & C.M.P. Nos. 2038 & 7863 of 2019
Decided On : 05-02-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - 173 - M.C.O.P.No.4105 of 2014 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - The court discussed the provisions related to compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the principles of determining loss of dependency and love and affection. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the deceased's income, personal expenses deduction, and the reasonableness of the compensation awarded.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of C. Victor in a road accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which the appellant appealed against, questioning the quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in determining the deceased's income and personal expenses deduction. It modified the compensation awarded, reducing the amount based on the deceased's notional income and loss of love and affection.
Issues: Quantum of compensation, determination of deceased's income, and personal expenses deduction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the deceased's income, personal expenses deduction, and the reasonableness of the compensation awarded.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reduced, with specific directions for the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the modified award amount.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.09.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.4105 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai).
1. The matter is heard through “Video-Conferencing”.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 12.09.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.4105 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
3. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.4105 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one C. Victor, who died in the accident that took place on 23.04.2014. The 4th respondent was impleaded in the claim petition and amendment was carried out as per the order dated 21.06.2017 made in M.P.No.1062 of 2016.
4. According to respondents 1 and 2, on 23.04.2014 at about 20.45 hours, while the deceased C. Victor was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 18 D 6255 from North to South direction on M.R.H. Road opposite to Adeshwar Metal Godown, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 02 J 9909 belonging to 3rd respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the Traffic Rules and without minding the vehicles in the same direction, tried to overtake the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider, dashed on the backside of the motorcycle and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the said C. Victor fell down from the motorcycle on the road and the right wheel of the lorry ran over his head. Due to the same, the said C. Victor, sustained fatal injuries on his head and died on the spot. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation against the 3rd respondent and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the Lorry respectively.
5. The 3rd respondent-owner of the Lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal.
6. The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the Lorry filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 and 2. According to the appellant, the driver of the lorry has to be impleaded as necessary party in the claim petition. The respondents 1 and 2 have to prove that the said C. Victor died in the accident involving the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 02 J 9909 belonging to 3rd respondent. The appellant denied the place, date and time of accident and also the fact that the 3rd respondent's lorry was insured with them at the time of accident. The respondents 1 and 2 have to prove that the driver of the lorry belonging to 3rd respondent was possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. The appellant denied the relationship of the deceased with the respondents 1 and 2 and also the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 and 2 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, one Selvakumar, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and one Mathiyas, employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.3 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18. The appellant-Insurance Company did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.
8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry belonging to 3rd respondent and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.32,04,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1, 2 and 4.
9. Questioning the quantu
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
