w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem v/s Parameshwari & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [Active] CIN = L67200MH1972GOI016133

Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [Active] CIN = U67200MH1972GOI016133

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U66603MH2000PLC128300

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2006PLC218261

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190MH2006PTC218260

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1948PTC017421

Company & Directors' Information:- K SALEM LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1947PTC005530

    C.M.A. No. 1594 of 2016 & C.M.P. No. 12034 of 2016

    Decided On, 03 March 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Appellant: S. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R5, A. Murugan, Advocate, R6, No Appearance.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 27.01.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1323 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special District Judge, Special District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem.)

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Special District Judge, Special District Court-cum-The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.1323 of 2011.

2. The accident occurred on 12.12.2010 at 20.15 hours near Pannapatty X Road. The Deevattipatty Police Station registered a case in Crime No.528 of 2010 under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the present appeal is preferred, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and more specifically, the huge compensation amount of Rs.25,85,840/- awarded by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. The Tribunal has not considered the source of salary as loss for entire 11 years and ought to have followed the settled multiplier method. The Tribunal has committed an error in granting 15% towards future prospects contrary to the judgment of the Courts. At the outset, it is contended that the percentage of compensation is on higher side, which requires interference by this Court.

5. The findings of the Tribunal reveals that the deceased was working as Assistant Foreman in Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd (T.N.P.L.) and he is an Income Tax Assessee. The PAN Card was marked as a document and at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 52 years. The salary certificate of the deceased was marked as Ex.P-7 and his monthly salary was Rs.27,019/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered the issues with reference to the salary certificate produced by the claimants as well as considering the fact that the deceased was an Income Tax Payer and accordingly, fixed the monthly income of the deceased and granted compensation.

6. The Tribunal has considered the other aspects regarding the dependents and loss of love and affection and loss of future income and also the future prospects. Considering all these factors, a total sum of Rs.25,85,840/- towards compensation was awarded by the Tribunal.

7. Perusal of the entire findings of the Tribunal reveals that the death occurred on account of the accident and the deceased was an Income Tax Assessee and worked as Assistant Foreman in the Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (T.N.P.L.), which is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking and accordingly, the Tribunal considered the documents and fixed the compensation.

8. This Court do not find any perversity or infirmity regarding the manner in which the Tribunal arrived a conclusion for fixing the compensation of Rs.25,85,840/- and therefore, the said compensation is to be construed as just compensation and in consonance with the legal principles. Thus, the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Special District Judge, Special District Court-cum-The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.1323 of 2011 is confirmed and consequently, C.M.A.No.1594 of 2016 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

9. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest, after deducting the amoun

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t, if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the said award amount with accrued interest by filing appropriate applications before the Tribunal and the Tribunal is directed to pay the award amount with accrued interest to the respondents/claimants only through RTGS.
O R