New India Assurance Company Limited vs S. Selvi And Ors

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J

Challenging the award, dated 23.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Palani, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited with regard to quantum.

The claimants, who are the respondents 1 to 4, have filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of one Senthil @ Senthil Kumar, who died in the accident that occurred on 09.08.2015. The respondents 1 to 4 are the wife, child and parents of the deceased Senthil @ Senthil Kumar.

The brief facts relevant for the consideration of the above case are that on 09.08.2015, when the deceased was riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-57-AW-2156 at Palani-Dindigul road, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-AM-1515, which was driven by the fifth respondent/first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, which was coming from the opposite direction, hit the deceased. Immediately, he was admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and subsequently, he died. Hence, the claimants have filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

Resisting the claim petition, the second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter affidavit contending that the accident had occurred only due to the reckless act of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and without any basis.

Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the appellant, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked.

The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the fifth respondent/first respondent and that the deceased had sustained injuries and due to the impact, he died. The Tribunal further held that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and had awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- under various heads, which is as follows:-

S.No

Description

Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)

1.

Loss of income

24,30,000/-

2.

Loss of consortium of the first respondent

40,000/-

3.

Funeral expenses

15,000/-

4.

Loss of estate

15,000/-

Total

Rs.25,00,000/-

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that relying on Ex.P.5, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month, which is erroneous. The learned counsel would further submit that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal had correctly awarded the compensation under various heads and the same need not be interfered with.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10.A cursory reading of the award itself would show that the monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is correct and arrived at the compensation of Rs.24,30,000/- (Rs.18,000 X 12 X 15 = 32,40,000/-, after deducting 1/4th towards loss of income) towards loss of income.

Further, the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on different conventional heads under the General Law and awarded only scheduled amount on all such conventional heads when only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate are awarded.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017(2) TN MAC 609(SC), so as to provide just compensation, held that reasonable amount under the conventional heads like loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses quantifying the same to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Now, it is undisputed proposition of law that though on all such conventional heads, for decades together, the Courts were awarding good amount of compensation upto Rs.3.5 Lacs, after the decision in Pranay Sethi's case (cited supra), the claimants are certainly entitled to atleast Rs.70,000/- on such conventional heads though at the relevant time, Courts were awarding more than Rs.70,000/- in aggregate for all such different conventional heads. Therefore, we see no merit in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum remains unaltered.

In the result,

(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the award, dated 23.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Palani.

(ii) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount together with accrued interest and costs to the credit of claim petition, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii) On such deposit being made, the respondents 1, 3 and 4/claimants 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to withdraw their share in the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal together with proportionate accrued interest and costs. The share of the minor claimant/second respondent is permitted to be kept in any of the Nationalised Bank in interest bearing fixed deposits, initially for a period of three years, renewable thereafter, till he attains majority and the guardian/first respondent is permitted to withdraw the interest amount from the above said fixed deposit, once in three months and utilize the same for the welfare of the minor child.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.