CMA(MD).No.78 of 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 11.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

C.M.A(MD)No.78 of 2017

and

C.M.P(MD) No.682 of 2017

The Divisional Manager,

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Market Road,

Thanjavur.

....Appellant/2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1. Krishnamoorthy

2. Shanthi

3. Minor. Deivaraj

4. Minor. Santhosh

5. Minor. Naveen

(Minors R3 to R5 are represented through

father and natural guardian of first respondent)

.... Respondents/Petitioners

6. Premavathy

.... 6^th Respondent/ 1^st Respondent

7. Stalin

.... 7^th Respondent/ 3^rd Respondent

8. The Divisional Manager,

The United India Insurance Company Ltd,

South Street,

Thanjavur.

... 8^th Respondent/4^th Respondent

1/11

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

CMA(MD).No.78 of 2017

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of

Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the award and decree, dated 27.11.2015

made in M.C.O.P.No.182 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (Special District Court), Thanjavur.

For Appellant

: Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan

For Respondents

: Mr.J.S.Murali – for R8

: No appearance – R1 to R7

J U D G M E N T

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the New

India Assurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Thanjavur,

M.C.O.P.No.182 of 2011.

2. The claimants have contended that the deceased was a Coolie,

earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month.

While the deceased was travelling in a trailer on 17.02.2009, at about

12.00 midnight, for the purpose of carrying sand, the Tractor driver had

driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle

capsized and deceased had fallen down and died on the spot.

2/11

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

CMA(MD).No.78 of 2017

3. According to the claimants, he was a load man in the said

vehicle. The claimants have further contended that the first respondent in

the claim petition is the owner of the Tractor, the second respondent is

the Insurance Company, the third respondent is the owner of the Trailer

and the fourth respondent is the Insurance Company of the Trailer.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence arrived at a finding that the accident has happened only due to

the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor driver. The Tribunal further

found that even though, it is contended that the Tractor driver did not

have any valid driving license, no efforts have been taken to initiate

proceedings. However, the Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company

of the Tractor to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the

owner of the Tractor.

5. The Tribunal proceeded to fix the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and added 50%

towards future prospectus and applied multiplier of “18” and arrived at

3/11

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

CMA(MD).No.78 of 2017

the total compensation under the head of loss of income at Rs.8,10,000/-

(Rupees Eight Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) and other conventional

damages were added and ultimately a sum of Rs.9,85,000/- (Rupees Nine

Lakhs and Eighty Five Thousand only) was awarded as compensation.

This award is under challenge by the Insurance Company of the Tractor.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had contended

that, admittedly, the deceased had travelled only on the Trailer and not on

the Tractor. Therefore, the Insurance Company of the Trailer alone

should have been mulcted with the liability to pay the compensation. He

further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest at

the rate of 9% per annum. The learned counsel appearing for appellant

relied upon the judgment of our High Court reported in (2001) 3 MLJ

496 (K.M.Manoharan and others Vs. Kandasamy and others) to

contend