CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CMA.No.3102 of 2017
and
CMA.No.69 of 2018
and
CMP.No.1622 of 2018
1.G.Jegathambal
2.G.Priya Dharshini
3.G.Pavithra
4.A.Kanagarathinam
5.G.Arumugam
...Appellants / Petitioners in CMA No.3102 of 2017
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
No.45, Moore Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
...Appellant / 2nd Respondent in CMA No.69 of 2018
v.
1.P.Papathy
2.The Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., No.45, Moore Street, Chennai – 600 001.
Now at Door No.232, NSC Bose Road, Bombay Mutual Building, Chennai - 1 ..Respondents / Respondents (in CMA No.3102 of 2017) 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018
1.G.Jegathambal
2.G.Priya Dharshini
3.G.Pavithran
4.A.Kanagarathinam
5.G.Arumugam ...Respondents 1 to 5 / Petitioners 1 to 5
6.P.Pappathy ...4th Respondent / 1st Respondent (in CMA No.69 of 2018) Prayer in CMA No.3102 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2016 in MCOP No.421 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / III Jugde, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
Prayer in CMA No.69 of 2018: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in MCOP No.421 of 2014 dated 04.07.2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / III Jugde, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Ms.Ramya V Rao, (in CMA No.3102 of 2017) Mr.J.Chandran , (in CMA No.69 of 2018) For Respondents : Mr.J.Chandran, (in CMA No.3102 of 2017) Ms.Ramya V Rao, (in CMA No.69 of 2018) 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT The petitioner in MCOP No.421 of 2014 which was on the file of the III Court of Small Causes, Chennai and also the 2nd respondent in the very same claim petition have filed two separate appeals questioning the judgment passed. The claimants have filed CMA No.3102 of 2017 and the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company has filed CMA No.69 of 2018.
2.The claimants and the insurance company are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted.
3.The petition in MCOP No.421 of 2014 had been filed taking advantage of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 3 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules 1989. Naturally, any petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would indicate that negligence cannot be the basis for claim and a schedule is provided in Schedule II of the Act, in which the quantum of compensation to be granted under the various heads, has been provided and the award should be on that particular basis. Proof of negligence is not a criteria. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018
4. The necessity to file the claim petition, arose owing to the fact that when one Gopalakrishnan was driving a mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-CV-7725 from Chengalpet to Tambaram, on 15.11.2013 at around 9.30 p.m, at that particular time point of time, another lorry bearing Registration No.TN-36-AA- 4713 which was proceeding in front of the lorry being driven by Gopalakrishnan without any signal stopped and owing to that fact, Gopalakrishnan who was driving the mini lorry dashed on the lorry and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It was claimed that the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-36-AA-4713 was responsible for the accident.
5.Owing to that particular fact, the legal representatives of Gopalakrishnan filed a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as negligence was evident in the very nature of the accident itself. The petition was taken on file and by judgment dated 04.07.2016, the Tribunal proceeded to determine whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-37- AA-4713 and also the compensation to be granted. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018
6.In the first place, the first issue which had been framed was also not necessary, since there is no necessity to prove negligence in a petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Accident Act, 1988. Fortunately, the Tribunal did find negligence on the part of the said lorry. Let me leave it at that.
7.Thereafter, the Tribunal determined the compensation to be granted and there again, the Tribunal misdirected itself owing to the fact that they adopted a multiplier and then they determined the monthly income of the deceased and determined the annual income of the deceased, the percentage, which he would have contributed to the family. The Tribunal need not have entered into these calculations at all. By judgment dated 04.07.2016, the Tribunal had granted a total compensation of Rs.5,42,000/-. The compensation breakup was as follows:
5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018 Heads Amounts Pecuniary loss (Rs.40,000 + Rs.12,000 = Rs.5,07,000/- Rs.52,000/- less deduction Rs.13,000 = Rs.39,000 x 13 = Rs.5,07,000/-) Funeral expense Rs.25,000/-
Transport expenses Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.5,42,000/-
8.The Tribunal had determined a sum of Rs.40,000/- as the annual income. Let me accept that. If the multiplier of 13 is adopted the total sum comes to Rs.5,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 13). If 1/4th amount is deducted, that amount to Rs.1,30,000/-. The balance amount was the loss of dependency and that is Rs.3,90,000/-.
9.The Tribunal had granted Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses.
10.These amounts should have been determined by way of the Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a look into that particular schedule reveals that towards funeral expenses a sum of Rs.2,000/- alone can be granted and further, towards loss to consortium a sum of Rs.5,000/- and towards loss of estate a sum of Rs.2,500/- alone can be granted. The compensation calculated comes to Rs.3,99,500/- and which can be rounded 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018 it of to Rs.4,00,000/-. The reduced compensation breakup is as follows:
Heads Amounts
Pecuniary loss Rs.3,90,000/-
Funeral expense Rs.2,000/-
Loss to consortium Rs.5,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.2,500/-
Total Rs.3,99,500/-
11.CMA.No.69 of 2010 is partly allowed reducing the
compensation which had been determined as Rs.5,42,000/- to Rs.3,99,500/- (rounded it of to Rs.4,00,000/-). The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid claim amount with interest of 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any amount had been deposited pursuant to directions of this Court, the same may be adjusted. The compensation amount can be apportioned in the following manner, namely Rs.1,50,000/- to the 1st petitioner, and Rs.1,00,000 each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners and Rs.50,000/- for the 4th and 5th petitioners. The accrued interest may also be accordingly apportioned. On such deposit, the appellants in CMA.No.3102 of 2017 are permitted to withdraw the same. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018 Additional Court fees, if any, has to be paid.
12.In the result, since the compensation is reduced,
(i)CMA No.3102 of 2017 is dismissed. No costs.
(ii)CMA No.69 of 2018 is partly allowed. No costs.
(iii)Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.03.2022 smv Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order To:-
The III Court of Small Causes, Chennai /Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
SMV 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018 CMA.Nos.3102 of 2017 & 69 of 2018 and CMP.No.1622 of 2018 01.03.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis