Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Annamalai - Respondent
C.M.A.No.1833 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.9852 of 2021
Decided on : 06-01-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For the Respondents : Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar, Mr.S.L.Venkatesan
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For the Respondent: Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar [R2] Mr.S.L.Venkatesan [R4]
Dependency is essential for compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, and settlements must consider all dependents, not just legal heirs.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for death due to accident - Claim filed by parents of deceased - Appeal by Insurance Company challenging award of compensation - Court held that mere legal heir certificate cannot negate claims of dependents, and compensation awarded was justified based on loss of dependency. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Legal heir status - Dependency of claimants - Court noted that dependency is crucial for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act and that prior settlement with other legal heirs does not affect rights of dependents. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The claimants, parents of the deceased, sought compensation after their daughter died in an accident while riding a two-wheeler. They argued that the deceased was their primary caretaker and challenged the Insurance Company's prior settlement with her husband.
Findings of Court:
The Court confirmed the Tribunal's award of Rs.2,14,220/- as just compensation for the loss of dependency, emphasizing the need for insurance companies to consider all dependents before settling claims.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of claims based on legal heir status versus dependency, and the adequacy of compensation awarded to the parents of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that dependency is a critical factor in compensation claims, and settlements made without considering all dependents are unjust.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Challenging the award dated 05.06.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Cheyyar in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2014, the Insurance Company has come up with the above Appeal.
2. On 22.02.2014, about 5.45 p.m., while the deceased Chinnaponnu was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN-25-AV-2290, being driven by one Subramani, on Malayampattu Koot Road from Arani to Polur, near Kalambur, a car bearing Regn.No.TN-07-BS-7936, belonging to the 1st respondent, which was insured with the 2nd respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two-wheeler, due to which Chinnaponnu sustained grievous head injury. Immediately, Chinnaponnu was admitted in Government Hospital, Arni and there, she was referred to Government Hospital, Vellore. While on the way to Government Hospital, Vellore, Chinnaponnu died. Aggrieved by the death of Chinnaponnu, respondents 1 and 2, who are her aged parents, filed a Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2014 seeking a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and eight documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and seven documents viz., Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7 were marked. After adjudication, the Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,14,220/- as compensation to the claimants. Challenging the same, the same, the present Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance company vehemently contended that the Claims Tribunal failed to note that on the basis of the Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Authority concerned, the Appellant/Insurance Company has settled the claim filed by the husband of the deceased on the file of the Lok Adalat and deposited the compensation amount in the Court. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the second award of Rs.2,14,220/- for the same cause of action is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that, the deceased Chinnaponnu was taking care of her parents at their old age, as there are no other siblings to take care of them. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal is right in awarding compensation to respondents 1 and 2 and he prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. The claimants are the father parents of the deceased, while the 3rd respondent is the husband of the deceased. There is no quarrel with the fact that the legal heir certificate is issued to the 3rd respondent, being the husband of the deceased. However, it is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased, viz., the daughter was taking care of them at their old age, as there are no other siblings to take care of them. The compensation is quantified and paid to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act to compensate the loss of dependency on account of the death of the bread winner, in view of the benevolent provisions under the .
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that a claim in respect of the death of the deceased had been paid to the 3rd respondent before the Lok Adalat and, therefore, a second claim is impermissible. However, there is no material placed before this Court to show that the claimants herein were shown as respondents in the claim petition filed by the 3rd respondent herein. Mere legal heir status alone cannot form the basis to provide the claim to the legal heirs, as the compensation is paid to offset the loss due to the death of the bread winner to the dependants.
9. Further, no material has been placed either by the appellant/insurance company or the 3rd respondent to counter the averment that the claimants are not dependent on the deceased. There is also no material to show that the de
