Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

National Insurance Company ... vs Sumathi

Madras High Court|08 November, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

[Judgment of this Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.] The appellant Insurance Company aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Paramakudi, in M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2011, dated 15.12.2012, has preferred this appeal, questioning the quantum awarded by the tribunal.
2.The Legal Heirs of the deceased Balasubramanian filed M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2011 seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-alleging that when the deceased was travelling in a Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-65-2979 belonging to the first respondent to attend the Teachers meeting at Erode, the driver drove the van in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. In the impact, he sustained injuries and he was taken to Government Hospital, Paramakudi. Despite the treatment, he died. A case in Cr.No.220 of 2011 was registered by Pamaramakudi Police Station.
3.The claimants have further stated that the deceased was working as PG Assistant from 06.11.1986 and he was drawing a salary of Rs.44,943/- per month. Since he died due to the negligence of the Van, they are entitled for compensation.
4.The appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim and contended that the deceased was responsible for the accident and the claim is excessive.
5.Before the Tribunal in order to prove their case, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and also examined other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked 10 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P10. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
6.P.W.1 is an eye witness to the occurrence. He supported the case of the claimants. The Tribunal accepting the evidence of the claimants has rightly come to the conclusion that the van was responsible for the accident.
7.Ex.P6 salary certificate would reveal that the deceased was drawing Rs.45,643/- per month and he died at the age of 54 years. Ex.P3 Post Mortem certificate also shows that the deceased was 54 years old. The Tribunal based on the evidence has come to the conclusion that the deceased was getting Rs.45,643/- per month and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal and living expenses and by applying multiplier of 11 awarded a sum of Rs.40,16,496/- towards loss of dependency. Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection. Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses.
8.Mr.J.S.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the deceased was a Government servant and he died at the age of 54 years and having another 4 years of service before his retirement. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 11 and hence it has to be reduced.
9.Despite the service, the respondents have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.
10.According to the claimants, the deceased was a Government servant and he died at the age of 54 years. It is not in dispute, he is having only 4 years of service before his retirement. Therefore, it is a fit case for applying the split multiplier. By applying the split multiplier, the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.13,14,528/-(Rs.45,643/- x 2/3 -10% x 12 x 4) for 4 years left over service. After his retirement, this Court has taken multiplier of 7 and awards a sum of Rs.11,50,212/- (Rs.45,643/- x 50/100x2/3-10% x 12 x 7). In total, the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.24,64,740/- instead of Rs.40,16,496/-. The amounts awarded under all other heads are confirmed.
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The award is reduced to Rs.25,24,740/- from Rs.40,76,498/-.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the entire award amount has already been deposited before the Tribunal. The claimants are permitted to withdraw their share in the award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to refund the excess amount, if any, to the appellant/Insurance Company. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Paramakudi.
.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

National Insurance Company ... vs Sumathi

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
08 November, 2017