LAWS(MAD)-2014-3-251

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. M MADHAVAN (DIED); M UNNAMALAI W/O M MADHAVAN; V NATARAJAN

Decided On March 21, 2014
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Appellant
V/S
M Madhavan (Died); M Unnamalai W/O M Madhavan; V Natarajan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents/claimants are the parents of the deceased Santhi. At the time of accident, she was aged 35 years. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that on 26.12.2007, about 07.00PM, when the deceased was riding a bicycle, near Vasantha Sweet Stall, on MBT Road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23K-1089, insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, Vellore, driven in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver, dashed against the cyclist and she died on the spot. A case in Crime No.384 of 2007 has been registered against the driver of the lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-23K-1089, insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The Insurance Company opposed the claim petition.

(2.) During the pendency of Claim Petition, father of the deceased died, leaving behind her mother, as the only surviving legal heir. The deceased was stated to be a spinster. Though a sum of Rs.10,000/- was claimed to be the monthly income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has fixed the monthly income as Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses, computed the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.3,60,000/-. In addition to the above, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Altogether, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,65,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim to the only surviving legal heir, mother of the deceased.

(3.) The appellant - Insurance Company has preferred this appeal contending inter alia that the Claims Tribunal has erred, in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, without any basis and accordingly, computed the loss of contribution to the family, as Rs.3,60,000/-. It is also the contention of the Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal ought to have applied '5' multiplier, instead of '16', considering the age of the mother, for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family.