Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 975
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, JJ.
The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Arumugam – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 538 of 2021, C.M.P. No. 3417 of 2021
Decided On : 26-03-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D. Bhaskaran.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pa. Sudesh Kumar.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims - grievous injuries – Death - Quantum and liability of compensation awarded by Tribunal – Appeal by Insurance Company - Whether compensation awarded by Tribunal is liable to be reduced - Deceased, wife of first respondent was working as a Teacher in School., she was returning from her School as a pillion rider with her husband who was riding his Hero Splendor Motorcycle. When they were proceeding towards Railway Gate, a Tata Tipper Lorry to 2nd respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, from same direction and dashed against two-wheeler which was driven by 1st respondent herein. Due to said impact, pillion rider, wife of 1st respondent deceased sustained grievous injuries. She was admitted in Hospital, where she underwent intensive medical treatment. However, she died in hospital on same day - Held, Tribunal has rightly fixed a sum of Rs. 64,157/- as monthly income of deceased and also added 10% towards her future prospects. As regards the deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased by 1/3rd, it is pertinent to note that 1st respondent being husband, is a legal heir, but he cannot be construed as a dependent on the deceased and as such, amount awarded under head ‘loss of dependency’ is liable to be reduced by fixing personal and living expenses of the deceased at ½. As per the post-mortem certificate, deceased was aged 54 years at time of accident, and following judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier 11 - Court view that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable which does not require any interference. However, as regards loss of consortium to the husband, this Court is of view that Tribunal has awarded excessive amount and the same is therefore reduced to Rs. 20,000/- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2019 in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur.
2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Amudhavalli W/o Arumugam, who died in the accident that took place on 20.02.2017.
3. The case in brief, is as follows:
The deceased Amudhavalli, wife of the first respondent was working as a Teacher in Government Middle School at Sappadi, Shoolagiri Taluk. On 20.02.2017, at about 5.30 p.m., she was returning from her School as a pillion rider with her husband who was riding his Hero Splendor Motorcycle bearing Reg. No. TN-29-S-9542. When they were proceeding towards Muneeswaran Nagar on Thally Railway Gate, Muneesaran Nagar, Ring Road, Hosur, a Tata Tipper Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-51-D-6521, belonging to the 2nd respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, from the same direction and dashed against the two-wheeler which was driven by the 1st respondent herein. Due to the said impact, the pillion rider, the wife of the 1st respondent Amudhavalli sustained grievous injuries. She was admitted in the Kauvery Hospital, Hosur, where she underwent intensive medical treatment. However, she died in the hospital on the same day. Therefore the legal heirs of the deceased, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hosur.
4. Resisting the above claim petition, the Appellant/Insurance Company filed counter affidavit inter-alia contending that the husband of the deceased who was driving the motorcycle was going in front of the lorry in a rash and negligent manner without following road traffic rules and all of a sudden, he stopped the motorcycle in the middle of the road and thereby caused the accident. Therefore, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle and not by the driver of the lorry. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Further, the driver of the lorry and rider of the motorcycle have no valid driving licence at the time of accident which is violation of the policy terms and conditions.
5. Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as PW-1 to PW-3. They marked 21 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-21. The appellant/Insurance Company, had not adduced oral or documentary evidence.
6. The Tribunal, on consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata Tipper Lorry and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 63,10,349/- as compensation to respondents 1 and 2 herein who are the husband and son of the deceased Amudhavalli.
7. Questioning the quantum and liability of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 30.09.2019 in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2018, the appellant-Insurance Company has come forward with the present appeal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the claimants are the husband and son of the deceased and they are not the dependents of the deceased. While so, the Tribunal ought to have deducted atleast half of the income towards personal and living expenses instead of 1/3rd. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinish Jain, 2018 (1) TN MAC 365. He would also submit that the Tribunal ought to have deducted the income tax due payable by the deceased while computing the compensation
