IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Ramani & Others – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 4708 of 2019
Decided On : 27-04-2023
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 173 - 173 - 173(1) - 173(2) - 173(3) - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation, the negligence of the deceased, and the determination of the monthly income of the deceased. The court confirmed the findings of the tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was riding his motorcycle when a van collided with the motorcycle, resulting in fatal injuries. The claimants sought compensation, which was awarded by the tribunal. The insurance company appealed the decision, disputing the manner of the accident and the amount of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the tribunal's findings that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the van driver and that the deceased was not at fault. The court also upheld the tribunal's determination of the deceased's monthly income and the awarded compensation.
Issues: Dispute over the manner of the accident, the negligence of the deceased, and the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the van driver and confirmed the tribunal's determination of the deceased's monthly income and the awarded compensation.
Final Decision: The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed, and the order passed by the tribunal was confirmed. The insurance company was directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, appeal against the award and decree dated 27.04.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No. 87 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Additional District Court (FTC), Kanchipuram.)
K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J.
1. The Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, aggreived over the award, dated 27.04.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.87 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Court F.T.C.), Kanchipuram. Awarding a compensation of Rs.64,65,376/- as against the claim of Rs.4,00,00,000/-.
2. It is the case of the claimants that on 30.08.2015 at about 4.30 a.m the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-20-AB-2516 on the extreme left side of Chennai to Tirupathi bye-pass road near Durga Rice Mill following the traffic rules. At that time, Maruti Omni Van bearing Reg. No.TN-09- BW-8985 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the motor cycle. Due to this, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is the further case of the claimants that the accident was not due to the negligence of the deceased and that the deceased was earning Rs.5,90,338/- from the Brick Industry per month and Rs.1,30,000/- from agricultural occupation. Therefore, prayed for appropriate compensation under various heads.
3. The appellant/Insurance Company, with the leave of the Court, disputed the manner of the accident. It is contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the respondent/deceased. It is submitted that the claim is highly exorbitant and excessive and liable to be rejected.
4. Before the Tribunal respondents/claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.20. On the side of the respondents, one Thiru. Selvakannan, Junior Assitant, R.T.O.Office, as examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.2 marked on the side of the respondents.
5. The Tribunal on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.64,65,376/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization.
6. Assailing the correctness of the award, Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the Omni bus is liable to pay compensation for the death of the Shanmugam, despite the fact that the deceased was responsible for the accident. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have accepted Ex.P.13 for fixing the monthly income of the deceased.
7. Per Contra, Mr. C. Richard Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants submitted that a ''''Just'''' compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal which calls for no interference. He further submitted that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the deceased, but only due to the negligence of the driver of the Omni bus. On the quantum of Compensation, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that sufficient oral and documentary evidences has been let in to prove that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- per month by doing brick business and agriculture.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and persued the materials available on record.
9. Admittedly, Ex.P.11- FIR is registered as against the driver of the Omni bus. No contra evidence adduced on the side of the respondent to prove the negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred only due to the fault of the Omni bus driver. Hence, as far as negligence is concerned the findings of the Tribunal is confirmed.
10. The next point for consideration is on quantum and the Tribunal is accepting Ex. P.13, copy of Income Tax Return for the year 2015-2016 fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.49,195/-. The alleged accident took place
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of documentary evidence in determining compensation for motor accident claims, and the application of future prospects and personal ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the deceased's income and the determination of notional income for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Motor Ve....
The court affirmed the Tribunal's findings on negligence and compensation calculation, emphasizing the lack of evidence for contributory negligence and the appropriateness of the awarded amount.
Court rectified compensation by properly assessing notional income and confirming individual fund allocation for dependents, adhering to legal principles regarding negligence and loss of consortium.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 173, in determining the compensation for a motor accident.
The court established that future prospects and standardized deductions for personal expenses must be applied in calculating compensation for wrongful death.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act based on the deceased's profession, age, and various aspects such as loss of depende....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the appellate court's discretion in determining the quantum of compensation and making deductions from the deceased's income in motor accident clai....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.