Advocates:
['M/S R RAVICHANDRAN', '', 'R SREE VIDHYA', 'm/s p b saravanan', '', 'b jawahar']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 04.02.2022

PRONOUNCED ON: 07.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

C.M.A.No.2082 of 2018

and

C.M.P.No.16192 of 2018

M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd.,

No.751, 3^rd Floor,

T.P.Cell

Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

... Appellant / 2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1.V.Sarumathi

2.V.Karthiyayini

3.V.Arunprasad

4.V.Priyadarshini

… Respondents 1 to 4/ Petitioners 1 to 4

5.J.Devaraj

… 5^th Respondent / 1^st Respondent

PRAYER:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and

decree dated 15.12.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.1389 of 2013 on the

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small

Causes, IV Judge (FAC), Chennai.

For Appellant :Ms.R.Sree Vidhya

For R1 to R4 :Mr.B.Jawahar

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the

appellant/Insurance Company, questioning the validity and

correctness of the award dated 15.12.2017 passed in

M.C.O.P.No.1389 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, IV Judge (FAC),

Chennai.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Before the Tribunal, the respondents 1 to 4 herein have

filed M.C.O.P.No.1389 of 2013 by stating that on 13.09.2012 at

about 4.30 p.m., when the deceased A.Varadarajan was walking

along Chithalapakkam Koot Road, opposite to Pillayar Kovil

Street, the Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.TN 69 AY

7497 was driven by its driver (1^st respondent in the claim

petition) in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased

from behind. In the impact, the deceased sustained grievous

injuries and he was taken to Global Hospital on the same day. In

spite of treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on

the next day viz., 14.09.2012. Therefore, for the death of the

deceased A.Varadarajan, the claimants who are the wife and

children, have filed the claim petition seeking a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

3. According to the claimants, the deceased was 70 years

old at the time of his death and he was a pensioner receiving

pension of Rs.11,000/- per month. It is also stated that the

deceased was an employee of Central Public Works Department,

Sashthri Bhavan, Chennai-6 and after his retirement he was in

receipt of the pensioner benefits from his employer. Therefore,

for the loss of the contribution of the deceased, the claimants

have filed the claim petition.

4. The appellant/Insurance Company resisted the claim

petition by filing a counter statement. In the counter statement

among other things, it was inter alia stated that the driver of

the car was not impleaded as a party to the claim petition and

therefore the claim petition is not maintainable. The

appellant/Insurance Company also denied the age, avocation and

income of the deceased. It was also stated that the claim amount

made by the claimants is exorbitant. The bills for

hospitalisation at Rs.97,344/- claimed requires a thorough

scrutiny. The appellant/Insurance Company therefore prayed the

Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of merits.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1^st claimant/wife herself was

examined as P.W.1 and one Amarnithi was examined as P.W.2 and

Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents one

Jayakumar was examined as R.W.1 and 3 documents were marked as

Exs.R1 to R3.

6. The Tribunal, upon considering the oral and documentary

evidence held that the accident was a result of the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the car and therefore, as

insurer of the car, the appellant is statutorily liable to pay

the compensation to the claimants.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. As regards quantum, the Tribunal taken note of the sum

of Rs.11,000/- per month received by the deceased as pension and

arrived at a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- a