C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023

THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.09.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023

and

C.M.P.No.21292 of 2203

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Reliance Tower,

No.6, Reliance House, Haddows Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

...Appellant

Vs.

1.S.N.Mahalakshmi

2.S.N.Jeshwanth

3.S.N.Shree Shaa

4.S.N.Shree Shai

5.K.Seshaiya

6.Mahalakshmi

7.S.Sathish Kumar

...Respondents

Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order of Award dated 05.12.2002

passed in MCOP.No.2495 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (Court of Small Causes-III), Chennai.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023

For Appellant

: Mr.G.Vasudevan

For Respondents

:Mr.S.P.Yuaraj for R1 to R6

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The Insurance Company is on appeal. Challenge is to the quantum

of compensation awarded in MCOP.No.2495 of 2017. The claimants sought

for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one S.Nagarjuna, who

died in a motor accident that occurred on 16.09.2016 when a lorry bearing

registration No.TN-18-AZ-5560 came from behind and hit against the two

wheeler bearing registration No.TN-18-AF-8271, in which, the deceased was

riding.

2.According to the claimants, it was the rash and negligent driving

of the lorry that caused the accident. Contending that the deceased was

working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.700/- per day, the claimants sought

for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023

3.The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending

that the accident did not occurred in the manner suggested by the claimants

and it was the deceased, who contributed to the accident by his own

negligence. The compensation claimed was termed as excessive.

4.At trial, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one

V.Srinivasalu, an eye-witness was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P10 were

marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of the

Insurance Company or the Insurer. The Tribunal, on the basis of the First

Information Report that was filed as Ex.P1 concluded that it was the

negligence on the part of the driver, of the lorry that caused the accident.

5.The Tribunal took the monthly notional income of the deceased at

Rs.12,000/- per month, added 40% towards future prospectus and deducted

1/5 towards personal expenses. By applying a multiplier of 17, the Tribunal

arrived at the total pecunary loss at Rs.27,41,760/-. Considering the number

of dependents, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the

dependents towards loss of consortium. It also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-

each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.2217 of 2023

compensation was arrived at Rs.30,11,760/- and the same was rounded off to

Rs.30,11,800/-.

6.Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance

Company would vehemently contend that the quantum of compensation

arrived at by the Tribunal is highly excessive. According to the learned

counsel, once it is admitted that the deceased is a Coolie, the Tribunal ought

not to have taken the notional income at Rs.12,000/- per month. The learned

counsel would also contend that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the

entire negligence is on the part of the lorry driver.

7.As regards the second contention of the learned counsel regarding

negligence, we are unable to entertain the same, since there was total lack of

evidence on the part of the Insurer and the Insurance Company before the

Tribunal. As regards the quantum, we find that the Tribunal has fixed the

income at Rs.12,000/- per month, which is