Advocates:
['M/S S ARUN KUMAR', '', 'M L GANESH', 'R MUNUSAMY S/O SOLAI', '', 'R- MINOR T RAMANA S/O DECEASED THIRUVENGADAM', 'R- MINOR T PRAJUN', 'R & R MINOR REP BY R', 'M/S P KAVUNDRAYAN', 'S VADIVEL']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.07.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

C.M.A.No.1907 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

and

Cros.Obj.No.31 of 2020

C.M.A.No.1907 of 2013

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

70, NSC Bose Road,

III Floor, Sowcarpet,

Chennai-600 003.

... Appellant/2nd Respondent/

R1 in Cross Objection

vs.

1. Munusamy

2. Minor R.Ramana

3. Minor T.Prajun

Minors rep. By their grandfather and

Natural guardian Munusamy

4. C.Loganayagi

...Respondents/Petitioners/

1st Respondent/Cross Objectors

Second Respondent

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree

dated 29.10.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.4200 of 2010, on the file of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (XVIII Additional District

and Sessions Judge) at Chennai.

For Appellant

: Mr.S.Arunkumar

For Respondents

: Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj- R1 to R3

R4 – No appearance

1/7

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

Cros.Obj.No.31 of 2020

1. Munusamy

2. Minor R.Ramana

3. Minor T.Prajun

Minors rep. By their grandfather and

Natural guardian Munusamy

...Cross Appellants

vs

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

70, NSC Bose Road,

III Floor, Sowcarpet,

Chennai-600 003.

2.C.Loganayagi

...Respondents

Prayer: Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated

29.10.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.4200 of 2010, on the file of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (XVIII Additional District and

Sessions Judge) at Chennai.

For Cross Objectors :

Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj

For Respondents

:

Mr.S.Arunkumar - R1

COMMON JUDGMENT

[This Appeal has been taken up for hearing through Video

conferencing]

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1907 of 2013 has been

filed by the Insurance Company and Cross Objection No.31 of 2020

has been filed by the claimants. The Appellant as well as the

cross objectors have challenged the award dated 29.10.2012

passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (XVIII Additional

District and Sessions Judge), Chennai, in MACTOP.No.4200 of

2010. The insurance company has challenged the quantum of

compensation assessed by the Tribunal and the claimants have

sought for enhancement.

Brief facts leading to the filing of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

and the Cross Objection.

2/7

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

2.

A person by name Thiruvenkadam, died on 24.10.2010, as

a result of an accident caused by the lorry bearing

Registration No.TSE 9977, owned by one Loganayagi, who is the

fourth respondent in CMA.No.1907 of 2013 and second respondent

in Cross Objection No.31 of 2020 and the said vehicle is insured

with the Appellant- insurance company.

3.

The accident happened when Thiruvenkadam was standing

at Solaiamman Koil Street, in front of door No.91 B,

Kodungaiyur, Chennai, at that time, a lorry bearing Registration

No.TSE 9977 was suddenly taken reverse in a rash and negligent

manner at high speed and hit the deceased Thiruvenkadam. As a

result of the impact, he was thrown out and the lorry ran over

the deceased and on the way to the hospital, he died.

4.

The claimants are the dependents of the deceased and

they are his father and sons. They have preferred a claim before

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal against the owner of the

lorry as well as the insurer of the lorry viz.,

Appellant/Insurance

Company,

seeking

a

compensation

Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Thiruvenkatam as a result of the

accident.

5.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its award dated

29.10.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4200 of 2010, directed the

Appellant/Insurance Company to pay the claimants a sum of

Rs.9,92,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum from the date of claim till the date of realization. Out

of the said compensation amount, the Tribunal determined the

compensation payable to the