Advocates:
['M/S M B GOPALAN', '', 'N VIJAYARAGHAVAN', 'M B RAGHAVAN', 'CHENNAI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.08.2015

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

and

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

C.M.A. No.1845 of 2015

M.P.Nos.1 of 2015

M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai.

.. Appellant/2nd Respondent

vs

1.S.Lakshmi

2.T.Senthil Ravi

3.V.Murugan

.. Respondents

Appeal filing under Section 173 of MV Act against the fair and

decretal order dated 30.01.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3862 of 2015,

on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Court of

Small Causes), Chennai.

For Appellant

.. Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)

Challenge in this appeal filed by M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai, is to the quantum of compensation of

Rs.17,45,000/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from

the date of claim, till the date of deposit, awarded to the

parents, legal representatives of the deceased. The deceased was

stated to be a first year Engineering student, studying in

Dr.K.Vasudevan College of Engineering Technology and aged 19 years,

at the time of accident.

2.

Material on record discloses that on 03.04.2013, when

the deceased Suganya, was travelling as a pillion rider, in a

Motorcycle, bearing Registration No.TN 22 CX 0055, a lorry, bearing

Registration No.TN 11 Y 2301, driven in a rash and negligent

manner, insured with the Company, dashed against the two-wheeler,

due to the impact, she fell down and the lorry ran over her hip,

and she died on the spot. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.469 of

2013, has been registered, against the driver of the lorry, on the

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

file of Mount Traffic Investigation Wing.

3.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the mother, motorcyclist

examined herself as PW.1, and she has spoken about the manner of

accident. She has marked the documents, Ex.P1 – FIR, Ex.P2 – Death

Report, Exs.P3 & P4 – Motor Vehicles Inspector's reports, Ex.P5 –

Post-Mortem Certificate, Ex.P6 – Death Certificate, Ex.P7 – Legal

Heir Certificate, Ex.P8 – Driving Licence of PW.1 and Ex.P9 –

College Transfer Certificate. There is no oral or documentary

evidence, on the side of appellant-Insurance Company. Evaluating

the same, the Claims Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the

lorry, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.

4.

Having regard to the age of the deceased and the

documents, stated supra and following the Hon'ble Division Bench

decision of this Court reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 657, the Claims

Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-.

Following the decision made in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in

2013 (2) TNMAC 55 (SC), the Claims Tribunal added up Rs.5,000/-

towards future prospects. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income

of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-.

5.

Applying the decisions in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation reported in 2009 (5) LW 561, Amrit Bhanu Shali v.

National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2012 (2) TNMAC 321 and

M.Mansoor v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2013 (2)

TNMAC 481 (SC), the Claims Tribunal applied '18' multiplier for

computing the compensation. After deducting 1/3^rd towards personal

and living expenses of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has

awarded Rs.16,20,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 12 x 18 x 1/3), towards loss of

dependency. Besides, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-

towards Funeral Expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- each), for

loss of love and affection. Altogether, the Claims Tribunal has

awarded Rs.17,45,000/-, as total compensation.

6.

Though Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company, assailed the correctness of the

finding, fixing negligence on the driver of the bus, as erroneous,

this Court is not inclined to reverse the same. Testimony of PW.1,

motorcyclist, is