{"id":160199,"date":"2002-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002"},"modified":"2014-10-13T22:36:04","modified_gmt":"2014-10-13T17:06:04","slug":"c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"C.M.A.No. 690\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
C.M.A.No. 690\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 05\/12\/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice K. GNANAPRAKASAM\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 690 of 1994\nand\nCross Objection No.73 of 1995.\n\nC.M.A.No. 690\/94.\nOriental Insurance Company Ltd.,\nBranch Office, Police Station Road,\nPollachi Post, 642 001.                    .. Appellant\/3rd respondent.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. C. Santhamani,\n2. C. Rajaram,\n3. C. Sriram,\n4. C. Sarathram,\n                        ..Petitioners.\n5. R. Marimuthu,\n6. V. Balakrishnan,\n7. New India Assurance\n   Co., Ltd., Branch Office,\n   389-391, Cross Cut Road,\n   Coimbatore.\n                        ..Respondents 1,2 and 4.\n\n                                          ..Respondents.\n\nCross Objection No. 73\/1995\n\n1. C. Santhamani,\n2. C. Rajaram,\n3. C. Sriram\n4. C. Sarathram.\n\n                                  ..Cross Objectors.\n                       Vs.\n1. Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd.,\n   Branch Office, Police Station\n   Road, Pollachi,642 001.\n2. R. Marimuthu,\n3. V. Balakrishnan,\n4. New India Assurance Co.,Ltd.,\n   Branch Office, Coimbatore-11.\n\n                                 .. Respondents in Cross\n                                    Objection.\n\n\nAppeal against the Judgment and Decree  made  in  M.C.O.P.No.    224\/90  dated\n10-01-1994,  on  the  file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate\nJudge), Coimbatore.\n\n!For appellant and 1st respondent ::  Mr.  M.B.  Raghavan\nin Cross Objection.\n\n^For Respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A  ::  Mr.  K.  Mohanram for Mr. S.  Kadarkarai\nand Cross Objectors.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.  Sathasivam, J.)<\/p>\n
Since the appeal and Cross Objection arise against the very same award of  the
\nMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, the same are being disposed of by
\nthe following  common judgment.  Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents
\nClaims Tribunal, Coimbatore dated 10-1-94 in  M.C.O.P.No.    224\/90,  Oriental
\nInsurance Company, Pollachi  has  filed C.M.A.No.  690\/94.  Respondents 1 to 4
\nin this appeal, claimants have filed Cross Objection No.73\/95, seeking further
\ncompensation of Rs.1,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Heard the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  as  well  as  contesting
\nrespondents 1 to 4.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Mr.   M.B.  Raghavan, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company,
\nby drawing our attention to Section 95 (2) (a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and
\nterms and conditions of policy of insurance,  namely,  Ex.B-5,  would  contend
\nthat their liability is restricted to Rs.1,50,000\/- only and that the Tribunal
\ncommitted  an  error  in passing the entire liability on the Insurance Company
\nwhich is  unsustainable  in  law.    Regarding  cross  objection,  it  is  his
\ncontention  that  inasmuch  as  the  appeal  is  only by the Insurance Company
\nquestioning its  liability,  the  cross  objection  in  their  appeal  by  the
\nclaimants is  not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  On the other hand,
\nMr.  K.  Mohan Ram, learned counsel for  the  respondents  1  to  4\/claimants,
\nwould contend that the deceased being a third party, and in the light of valid
\ninsurance  policy, the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the entire
\namount and the same has been rightly granted by the Tribunal.  In  any  event,
\naccording  to  him, even if the case of the appellant is acceptable, direction
\nmay be issued for payment of the entire amount by the insurance company at the
\nfirst instance with a liberty to them to recover the same from  the  owner  of
\nthe vehicle.  In so far as the cross objection is concerned, it is stated that
\nthe  compensation  was  arrived  at  after applying proper multiplier, and the
\ndeduction of  1\/4th  amount  towards  uncertainty  of  life  etc.,  cannot  be
\nsustained,   accordingly  the  cross  objectors  are  entitled  to  a  further
\ncompensation of Rs.1,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
4.  We have carefully considered the rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n
5.  First we shall consider the stand taken by the Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n
6.  In terms of section 95 (2) (a)  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939,  the
\ninsurance  company  is  obliged  to  satisfy  the  liability  to  an extent of
\nRs.1,50,000\/- in so far as goods carriage vehicle is concerned.   However,  it
\nis the case of the respondents 1 to 4\/claimants that inasmuch as the insurance
\ncovers third  party risk, the liability is unlimited.  First we shall consider
\nthe policy of insurance which has been marked as Ex.B-5 through R.W.1.   After
\nreferring  to the registration No., owner of the vehicle etc., Ex.B-5 contains
\nthe following details:\n<\/p>\n
“SCHEDULE OF PREMIUM IN RUPEES
\nB.  Liability to public risk
\nAdd:for LL to authorised non-fare paying
\npassengers as per ENDT, IMT-14(b) Rs240.00
\nTotal No.of authorised non fare
\npaying passengers.  Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Limit any one passenger Rs.10000\/- Rs36.00<\/p>\n
Limit any one accident Rs.50000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Add:LL to paid driver and\/or Cleaner\/
\nCoolies as per ENDT.IMT-16 Rs.16.00<\/p>\n
Add:for increased T.P.Limits under
\nSection 11 1(i) unlimited
\nUnder sec.11 1(ii) Rs.  Rs.\n<\/p>\n
———\n<\/p>\n
292.00\n<\/p>\n
———\n<\/p>\n
Add:  Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Less 10% Special Discount Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Absolute Net Premium ‘B’ Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Absolute Net Premium ‘A’ Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Total Net Premium A +B Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Net Premium Due (rounded off) 292.00<\/p>\n
Subject to Endorsement Nos.2a,14b,16 & Warranty Printed\/
\nAttached here to?”\n<\/p>\n
By pointing out the fact that in view of  payment  of  premium  of  Rs.240  \/-
\ntowards  third party risks (TPR), it is contended on the side of the claimants
\nthat the liability of the insurance company is unlimited.  On the other  hand,
\nit  is  the  case  of the insurance company that, in the absence of payment of
\nadditional premium, the liability is to the  extent  of  Rs.1,50,000\/-.    The
\nMotor  Insurance  Rating  Guide, which sets out the provisions relating to the
\nbenefits under motor insurance, has defined the types of  insurance  policies.
\nThough  the  Motor  Insurance  Rating  Guide has not been marked, the same was
\nproduced at the time of the argument and we have perused  and  considered  the
\nvarious clauses therein, particularly the liability to public risk policy.  In
\nour case,  the  policy  is  a third party liability insurance policy.  Learned
\ncounsel appearing for the appellant has also brought to our notice a  Division
\nBench judgment of  this  Court  (P.    Shanmugam  and P.  Thangavel, JJ) dated
\n14-02-2002 made  in  C.M.A.No.    252\/95  (National  Insurance  Company  Ltd.,
\nKumbakonam vs.    Pakkiriammal  and<\/a> 5 others) wherein the Bench has considered
\nthis identical question with reference to Section 95 (1), (2) (a) of the Motor
\nVehicles Act, 1939.  The Division Bench has  extracted  the  relevant  clauses
\nfrom the  Motor  Insurance  Rating Guide.  After referring to various types of
\nInsurance Policies and the  liability  to  the  Public  risk,  the  Bench  has
\nconcluded that,<\/p>\n
“5.   As per the definitions of the three types of policies, we find that each
\none of them are distinct and separate.   The  comprehensive  insurance  policy
\ncovers the following risks:\n<\/p>\n
(a) Public risk including Act Liability\n<\/p>\n
(b) Loss or damage to the vehicle’s risk
\nThe  Public  Risk  Policy  indemnifies the legal liability in respect of third
\nparty accidental personal injury or property damage by the vehicle.
\nThe Act Liability Policy covers the third party risks in a public place.\n<\/p>\n
In both the policies, expressions ‘legal liability for claims’ have been  used
\nand in the Act Liability Policy, a further expression “as is necessary to meet
\nthe  requirements  of  section  95  of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939″ has been
\nincluded.  But, none of the policies say  that  the  liability  is  unlimited.
\nEven  in  reference  to  comprehensive  policy,  it says that the liability is
\nsubject to the limitation mentioned in the policy and  the  liability  to  the
\npublic risk,  including  act  liability.    By  going  through the schedule of
\nPremium, it is seen that the premium differs from the public risk and the  act
\nonly  liability and the minimum premium payable for goods carrying vehicle for
\npublic risk is Rs.240\/-.    If  there  has  to  be  additional  benefit  under
\ncommercial vehicles’ tariff for a personal injury or unlimited property damage
\nup-to Rs.3  lakhs,  an additional premium of Rs.150\/- is to be paid.  The Note
\nunder this additional benefit  clause  makes  it  clear  that  the  limits  of
\nindemnity  under  the  policy  may  be increased in accordance with the scale.
\nFrom the above, it is clear that  the  liability  is  limited  to  the  extent
\nmentioned under the Act unless and until additional premium is paid.”
\nIn  our  case,  we  have already referred to the details of payments under Ex.
\nB-5.  It is clear that as per policy-Ex.B-5, the owner has  paid  the  minimum
\nbonus  for  third party risks plus Rs.16\/- for paid driver and cleaner, but he
\nhas not paid additional amount  for  increased  T.    P.limits.    As  rightly
\ncontended  by  the learned counsel for the Insurance company, if the owner had
\nto get an unlimited legal liability, he should have paid extra premium,  which
\nhas not been done in our case.  Earlier the Division Bench after considering a
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs.  JUGAL
\nKISHORE [A.  I.R.    1998  S.C.  719], earlier Division Bench decision of this
\nCourt in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs.  K.    CHANDRA  [1991  A.C.J.
\n386],  and  another Division Bench decision in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
\nVs.  JALAJA & OTHERS [1995 A.C.J.  829] held that the insurance company is not
\nliable to pay anything more than the amount limited in the statute unless  the
\npolicy contains a different provision.  In NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
\nVs.  SHANTHI  BAI  [1995  A.C.J.   470], the Supreme Court, after referring to
\nSection 95 of the Act, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium on  this
\nscore, however, does not mean that the limit of liability with regard to third
\nparty  risk  becomes  unlimited  or  higher than the statutory liability fixed
\nunder Sub-section (2) of Section 9 5 of the Act.  For this purpose, a specific
\nagreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance company and
\nseparate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken  by  the
\ninsurance company in this behalf.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is  clear  from the above decision that even the comprehensive policy does
\nnot automatically result in covering the liability of third party risk for the
\namount higher than the statutory limit.  Similar view has been expressed by  a
\nDivision Bench  of this Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs.  R.K.
\nGEETHA AND ANOTHER [Vol.I (1999) A.C.C.  535].  In NATIONAL INSURANCE  COMPANY
\nLIMITED Vs.   NATHILAL  AND OTHERS [1999 (1) S.C.C.  552], the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt has held that in the absence of payment of any special premium  for  the
\npurpose  of  unlimited  liability, it is presumed that the terms of the policy
\nwere limited to Rs.1,50,000\/-.    Apart  from  the  above  decisions,  learned
\ncounsel  for  the  appellant  has  also  relied on a decision of this Court in
\nNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ERODE v.  BOOPATHI<\/a> alias VENKATACHALAPATHY
\n[1999 (II) M.L.J.  653]  wherein  one  of  us  (P.    Sathasivam,  J.),  after
\nfollowing the Division  Bench decision in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.  TD., v.  K.
\nCHANDRA<\/a> [1991 A.C.J.  386] held that under Section 95 (2)  (b)  of  the  Motor
\nVehicles  Act, 1939 , the insurance company is not liable to pay anything more
\nthan the amount limited by the Statute unless the policy contains a  different
\nprovision.  In that case, after referring to Ex.R-1 policy of insurance, it is
\nheld   that   the   liability  of  the  insurance  company  is  restricted  to
\nRs.1,50,000\/- only.  We are in agreement with the said conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
7.  Mr.K.  Mohan Ram, learned counsel for the respondents  1  to  4\/claimants,
\nwould  contend that in the event of taking a decision that in terms of Ex.B-5,
\nthe liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs.1,50,000\/-,  they  may
\nbe  directed to pay the entire amount as awarded to the claimants with a right
\nto recover from the insured the excess amount over and above covered under the
\npolicy.  In support of his claim, he very much relied on  a  decision  of  the
\nSupreme Court in  ORIENTAL  INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., v.  C.  NAFEESSU<\/a> [2001 (1)
\nUJ 378 (SC):  [2001 A.C.J page 1] wherein Their Lordships have held  that  the
\ninsurance  company  is liable to pay the entire award amount to the claimants.
\nThey further held that upon making such payment,  the  insurance  company  can
\nrecover the excess amount from the insured by executing the
\naward  against  the insured to the extent of such excess as per Section 174 of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  By relying upon  the  above  judgment,  learned
\ncounsel  for  the  respondents  1  to  4 prayed for necessary direction to the
\ninsurance company to pay the  entire  liability.    In  this  regard,  learned
\ncounsel  for  the  appellant  pressed  into  service  a recent judgment of the
\nConstitution Bench of the Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE  COMPANY  LTD.,
\nv.  C.M.  JAYA &  OTHERS<\/a>  [2002  ACJ  271] :  [2002 A.I.R.  S.C.W 259].  After
\nconsidering 2,3 Judges Bench decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, NEW INDIA<\/p>\n
ASSURANCE CO., LTD.  v.  SHANTI BAI<\/a> [1995 A.C.J.470 (SC)] and AMRIT  LAL  SOOD
\nv.   KAUSHALYA DEVI THAPAR<\/a> [1998 ACJ 531 (SC)], Their Lordships have concluded
\nas follows:  (para 11)<\/p>\n
“11.  In the premise, we hold that the view expressed  by  the  Bench  of  the
\nthree  learned Judges in the case of SHANTI BAI, 1995 ACJ 470 (SC), is correct
\nand answer the question set out in the order of reference in the beginning  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
In  the case of insurance company not taking any higher liability by accepting
\na higher premium for payment of compensation to a  third  party,  the  insurer
\nwould  be  liable  to  the  extent limited under section 95 (2) of the Act and
\nwould not be liable to pay the entire amount.”\n<\/p>\n
In the light of the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench in the above
\njudgment, we hold that the liability of the insurance company  is  limited  to
\nRs.1,50,000\/-,  and  the  insured  is  bound  to  pay  the remaining amount of
\ncompensation.  It is also relevant to note that similar contention was  raised
\nbefore the  Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.  252\/95 dated 14-02-2002
\n(cited supra).    There  also  the  Division  Bench,  in  the  light  of   the
\nConstitution Bench of  the  Supreme  Court  in 2002 A.I.R.  S.C.W.  259 (cited
\nsupra), arrived a similar conclusion that in the case of insurance company not
\ntaking any higher liability by accepting  a  higher  premium  for  payment  of
\ncompensation  to  the  third  party, the insurer would be liable to the extent
\nlimited under Section 92 of the Act and would not be liable to pay the  entire
\namount.   The  said  view  of the Division Bench of this Court and the present
\nview of us are in consonance with the view expressed by the Constitution Bench
\nof the Supreme Court.  Accordingly, in view of the fact  that  higher  premium
\nhad not been paid for unlimited liability for payment of compensation to third
\nparty,  we  hold  that  the  liability  of the appellant-insurer is limited to
\nRs.1,50,000\/- and the insured  is  liable  to  pay  the  remaining  amount  of
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Even at the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance
\ncompany pointed out that inasmuch as they are questioning their liability, the
\nCross Objection by the claimants in this  appeal  is  not  maintainable.    In
\nsupport of the above contention regarding maintainability of the Memorandum of
\nCross  Objection, the insurance company relied on a Division Bench decision of
\nthis Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.  v.  M.R.  SUBRAMANIAN &  ANOTHER<\/a>
\n[1996 ACJ  1260].   In that decision, it was pointed out that since the appeal
\nis confined to the liability of the insurance company and in that  appeal  the
\nclaimant cannot make a claim for enhancement, which is really directed against
\nthe owner  of  the  vehicle  who  is  a  co-respondent  in  the appeal.  After
\nreferring to the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in UNITED INDIA
\nINSURANCE COMPANY LTD., v.  RAJAMMAL<\/a> [1993  A.C.J  486  (Madras)],  and  after
\nexpressing  their agreement with the decision arrived at therein, the Division
\nBench has held that the memorandum of cross objection is not maintainable  and
\ndismissed the  same.    In the light of the said contention, we have carefully
\nconsidered the facts in the decision of the Division Bench referred  to  above
\nand various grounds  raised in this appeal.  As rightly pointed out by Mr.  K.
\nMohan Ram, learned counsel for cross objectors, though the  insurance  company
\nhas mainly contended their limited liability in terms of Section 92 (2) of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1939, a perusal of their grounds of appeal shows that they
\nchallenged  the  entire award of compensation, including interest, as directed
\nby the Tribunal and after arriving the value of the appeal, paid court-fee for
\nthe entire amount.  It is clear that the  entire  amount  as  awarded  by  the
\nTribunal including interest and costs are being questioned in this appeal.  In
\nthis  regard, it is relevant to refer a decision of the Supreme Court in M\/ s.
\nBIHAR SUPPLY SYNDICATE v.  ASIATIC NAVIGATION<\/a> [AIR 1993 Supreme  Court  2054].
\nIn  the  said  decision, Their Lordships, after referring to Order 41 Rule 33,
\nCivil Procedure Code, have observed thus:  (para 29)<\/p>\n
“29.  Really speaking the Rule is in three parts.  The first part  confers  on
\nthe appellate Court very wide powers to pass such orders in appeal as the case
\nmay require.    The  second  part  contemplates  that  this wide power will be
\nexercised by the appellate Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part
\nonly of the decree and may be exercised  in  favour  of  all  or  any  of  the
\nrespondents  or  parties,  although  such  respondents or parties may not have
\nfiled any appeal or objection.  The  third  part  is  where  there  have  been
\ndecrees  in  cross-suits  or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit,
\nthis power is directed to be exercised  in  respect  of  all  or  any  of  the
\ndecrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees.”\n<\/p>\n
In  the  light of the decision of the Supreme Court, more particularly in view
\nof the fact that the entire amount is being questioned in  the  memorandum  of
\nappeal  by paying requisite court-fee (though in the argument they confined to
\ntheir liability to the extent of Section 92 (2) of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,
\n1939),  in  view  of  the peculiar circumstances of the case, we hold that the
\npresent cross objection is maintainable and we intend to consider  the  merits
\nof the same in the subsequent paragraph.\n<\/p>\n
9.  Now we shall consider the cross objection No.735 filed by respondents 1 to
\n4  herein  seeking  a further compensation of Rs.1,00,000\/- in addition to the
\namount awarded by the Tribunal.  Since in the cross appeal the cross objectors
\nrestricted their claim to the extent of Rs.1,00,000\/-, the only  issue  to  be
\nconsidered  in the cross appeal is whether they (cross objectors) are entitled
\nto a further compensation of Rs.1,00,000\/- as claimed.  It is  seen  from  the
\nevidence  of  P.W.1,  second  claimant  that  at the time of the accident, the
\ndeceased father was aged about 58 years and  at  the  relevant  time,  he  was
\nworking as  an  Adviser  in textile mills.  He further deposed that his father
\nsecured decree in textiles in the United States and on the date of  retirement
\nin 1987  he  was  getting  Rs.15,000\/-p.m.    According to him, even after his
\nretirement, he was employed as the Adviser in Narasimma Mill and  was  getting
\nsizeable income.    Though  the claimants have produced acceptable documentary
\nevidence in respect of his avocation, income,  payment  of  income  tax  etc.,
\ntaking  note  of  all  the aspects including the fact that the second claimant
\n(P.W.1) and third claimant are earning members, the Tribunal arrived an amount
\nof Rs.7,75 0\/- as his monthly income and Rs.93,000\/- as his annual income  and
\nafter  deducting  a  portion  towards  his  personal  expenses,  it  arrived a
\nconclusion that he would contribute at  least  Rs.6,000\/-  per  month  to  his
\nfamily and annual contribution would be Rs.72,000\/-.  Based on the evidence of
\nP.W.1  and  upon the reference made in the post-mortem certificate-Ex.P-7, the
\nTribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 58 years which is acceptable.  After
\nholding that but for the accident,  the  deceased  Chandrasekaran  would  live
\nup-to  the  age  of  65, multiplied the same by multiplier of 7 and arrived an
\namount of Rs.5,04,000\/-.  From and  out  of  the  said  amount,  the  Tribunal
\ndeducted   1\/4th  towards  uncertainty  of  life  and  arrived  an  amount  of
\nRs.3,78,000\/- as loss caused  to  the  claimants.    After  adding  a  sum  of
\nRs.15,000\/- towards loss of love and affection, mental agony etc., Rs.25,000\/-
\ntowards  damage  to  his  vehicle  and  other  belongings, passed an award for
\nRs.04,18,000 \/-.  Considering the fact that the deceased  was  aged  about  58
\nyears  on  the  date  of  the  accident,  in  the  light  of  his  educational
\nqualification and of the fact that even after retirement  he  was  working  as
\nAdviser  to many textile mills, we are of the view that as rightly observed by
\nthe Tribunal, undoubtedly, he would contribute at least Rs.6,00 0\/- per  month
\nto his  family till 65 years.  Likewise, the application of 7 years multiplier
\nfor arriving a pecuniary loss to the family is  also  quite  reasonable.    As
\nstated earlier, it is to be noted that even on the date of filing of the claim
\npetition, the  claimants 2 and 3 were not depending on the deceased.  However,
\nas rightly contended by the learned counsel for the  cross  objectors,  having
\napplied  multiplier  method  and  selecting  proper multiplier, namely, 7, the
\nTribunal is not justified in deducting 1\/4th of the amount towards uncertainty
\nof life.  We have already referred to the fact that the Tribunal after  fixing
\nthat  the  deceased  would  earn  Rs.7,750\/-,  deducted  a portion towards his
\npersonal expense and arrived Rs.6,000\/-per month as his  contribution  to  his
\nfamily.  When multiplier is adopted, there is no need to deduct amount towards
\nuncertainty.   In  this regard, it is useful to note a Division Bench decision
\nof this Court in VIJAYALAKSHMI, C.  & ANOTHER v.  N.  SIVA BAGIYAM<\/a>  7  ANOTHER
\n[1996-2-L.W.  238].    In  that  decision,  while  determining  the  amount by
\napplying multiplier method, speaking for the  Bench,  one  of  us  (P.    Sath
\nasivam,  J) has held that if proper multiplier and multiplicant is applied and
\nthe same is reasonable,  there  is  no  need  to  deduct  any  amount  towards
\nuncertainty of  life  and  lump  sum  payment.  Since the Tribunal in our case
\nselected proper multiplier and fixed acceptable multiplicant, as stated in the
\nDivision Bench decision, there is no need to deduct 1\/4th towards  uncertainty
\nof life.  In such a circumstance, we hold that the Tribunal committed an error
\nin  allowing  a  deduction of 1\/4th of the amount towards uncertainty of life.
\nWe set aside the said order of the Tribunal.  Inasmuch as the deducted  amount
\ntowards  uncertainty  of life is Rs.1,26,000\/-, and in view of our conclusion,
\nwe hold that the claimants are entitled to the said amount,  however,  in  the
\ncross objection, they are claiming Rs.1,00,000\/- only, hence we grant the same
\nas claimed.\n<\/p>\n
10.  In the light of what is stated above, we pass the following order:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  The  award  of  compensation  of  Rs.4,18,000\/-  fixed by the Tribunal is
\nenhanced to Rs.5,18,000\/- (Rs.4,18,000 + Rs.1,00,000) with interest at  9  per
\ncent  per  annum (for the enhanced amount) from the date of petition till date
\nof payment;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  Out  of  the  said  amount  of  Rs.5,18,000\/-,  the  liability  of   the
\nappellant-Insurance  Company  is  limited  to  Rs.1,50,000\/-  in  terms of Ex.
\nB-5-Insurance policy;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The insured of the vehicle-lorry\/ R.Marimuthu\/5th respondent herein,  is
\nliable  to  pay  the  balance  amount  over  and  above  Rs.1 ,50,000\/- to the
\nclaimants.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) The first respondent herein –  C.    Santhamani,  wife  of  the  deceased
\nChandrasekar is entitled to the enhanced compensation as ordered above.\n<\/p>\n
The  Civil  Miscellaneous Appeal as well as the Cross Objection are allowed to
\nthe extent mentioned above.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
R.B.\n<\/p>\n
Index:- Yes
\nInternet:- Yes<\/p>\n
To:-1) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court),
\nCoimbatore (with records).\n<\/p>\n
2) The Section Officer, V.R.  Section, High Court,
\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court C.M.A.No. 690\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 05\/12\/2002 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr.Justice K. GNANAPRAKASAM Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 690 of 1994 and Cross Objection No.73 of 1995. C.M.A.No. 690\/94. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.M.A.No. 690\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.M.A.No. 690\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-13T17:06:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.M.A.No. 690\\\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-13T17:06:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3713,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002\",\"name\":\"C.M.A.No. 690\\\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-13T17:06:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.M.A.No. 690\\\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.M.A.No. 690\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.M.A.No. 690\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-13T17:06:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.M.A.No. 690\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-13T17:06:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002"},"wordCount":3713,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002","name":"C.M.A.No. 690\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-13T17:06:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-m-a-no-69094-vs-c-santhamani-on-5-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.M.A.No. 690\/94 vs C. Santhamani on 5 December, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=160199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}