Madras High Court

Makbool vs M/S. Tesco Hindustan Service on 21 April, 2021

                                                                          C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 21.04.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014

                      1. Makbool
                      2. Noorjan
                      3. Sharmila                                          ... Appellants

                                                         Versus

                      1. M/s. TESCO Hindustan Service
                            Centre Pvt. Ltd.,
                        No.81 & 82, EPIP,
                        White Field,
                        Bangalore - 560 066.

                      2. The Royal Sundaram Alliance
                            Insurance Company Ltd.,
                         Sundaram Towers,
                         No.45 & 46 Whites Road,
                         Chennai - 600 104.                                ... Respondents

                      Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                      Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 18.04.2012 made in
                      M.C.O.P.No.1072 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
                      Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri.



                      Page 1 of 10


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                               C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014

                                           For Appellant     : Mr.K.Prasanna
                                                               For Mr.M.Sriram
                                           For Respondents
                                                 For R1    : Not ready in notice
                                                 For R2    : Mr.E.Rajadurai
                                                             For Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan

                                                     JUDGMENT

This appeal is laid as against the judgment and decree dated

18.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P.No.1072 of 2010, thereby

awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,76,000/-

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to

hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 07.06.2009, when the

deceased was walking on the left side of the bye pass road, the car belonged

to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, had driven

by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased

and caused accident. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained grievous

and fatal injuries. Immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital,

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014

Krishnagiri and he was advised to take to Bangalore Hospital for further

treatment. Again he was referred to the Government General Hospital,

Chennai. Finally on 14.06.2009, he was succumbed due to the injuries.

Hence the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation at

Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed counter stating

that only on the negligent walking of the deceased, the accident took place

and as such, the second respondent is not at all liable to pay any

compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the side of the claimants, they examined P.W.1 and marked

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and

no material has been marked as exhibit. On the basis of the evidence

available on records and also considering the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.3,76,000/- as compensation payable by the respondents jointly and

severally. Being not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants came forward with the present

appeal for enhancement.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants

submits that the deceased was died at the age of 18 years and he was

working as a mechanic in the mechanical workshop and he was earning a

sum of Rs.7,500/- per month. Even then, the Tribunal had taken his salary as

Rs.3,000/- per month and failed to considered the future prospect. In other

heads also the Tribunal awarded very low compensation and it is liable to be

enhanced. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of the award amount.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent contended that the deceased negligently crossed the road as

such, the accidence took place. Therefore, the second respondent is not at all

liable to pay any compensation. In respect of the quantum is concerned, the

deceased was minor at the time of his death and he was not working in

anywhere and not earned as claimed by the claimants. In fact, the Tribunal

awarded excess compensation and it is liable to be confirmed. Therefore he

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard Mr.K.Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the

claimant and Mr.E.Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent.

9. On 07.06.2009, while the deceased was walking on the left side

of the bye pass road near old RTO Office, Krishnagiri District, the vehicle

owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent was

driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

deceased and caused accident. Immediately the deceased was taken to the

Government Hospital, Krishnagiri and thereafter refered to Bangalore

Hospital. Again he was taken to the Government General Hospital, Chennai

and admitted as inpatient. However, the deceased died on 14.06.2009.

10. Though the claimants stated the age of the deceased was 18

years at the time of accident, the postmortem report, which is marked as

Ex.P.2 revealed that the age of the deceased is 15 years. P.W.1 deposed that

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014

the deceased was working as mechanic and earned a sum of Rs.7,500/- per

month. But to prove the same, no document was produced as proof of the

income. However, there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the

respondents. Therefore, the Tribunal had taken a sum of Rs.3,000/- as

monthly income and after deducting the half of the income for his personal

expenses, awarded the compensation by applying 18 multiplier. However,

the Tribunal failed to award any compensation for his future prospects.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances, the monthly income

has to be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. Since the accident took place in the

year 2009, the future prospect has to be taken at 40% of the income towards

the future prospects. After deducting 50% of the income towards personal

expenses, the pecuniary loss by the claimants is calculated as follows :-

= [(Rs.4,500/- + 40%) X 12 X18] – 50%

= [(Rs.4,500/- + 1,800) X 12 X18] – 50%

= [6,300 X 12 X18] – 50%

= 13,60,800 – 50% = 6,80,400

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014

Accordingly, a sum of Rs.6,80,400/- has to be awarded under the head of

loss of pecuniary benefits to the claimants.

12. That apart, the Tribunal awarded very low compensation for

transportation and funeral expenses and failed to award any compensation

under the head of pain and sufferings. Therefore, this Court is inclined to

grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of

Rs.20,000/- towards transportation and to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- and

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and pain & sufferings. Further, the

interest on the award amount granted by the Tribunal has to be enhanced

from 6% to 7.5% .

13. Accordingly the compensation awarded by the Tribunal stands

modified as under :-

Sl.No Heads Awarded by the Awarded by this Tribunal Court 1 Loss of Pecuniary 3,24,000 6,80,400 2 Love and affection 42,000 42,000 3 Transportation 5,000 20,000 4 Funeral Expenses 5,000 10,000

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014

Sl.No Heads Awarded by the Awarded by this Tribunal Court 5 Pain & sufferings Nil 10,000 6 Loss of estate Nill 15,000 Total 3,76,000 7,77,400

14. In the result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as

follows:-

(i) The award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,76,000/-

to Rs.7,77,400/-

(ii) The award amount will carry the interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit.

(iii) The claimants are entitled to get the modified award amount as follows:-

                                              First claimant       - Rs. 2,25,000/-
                                              Second claimant      - Rs. 4,00,000/-
                                              Third claimant       - Rs. 1,52,400/-

(iv) The second respondent is directed to deposit the award amount,

less the amount, if any, already deposited, along with accrued interest within

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014

(v) On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the

amount awarded as above by filing proper application before the Tribunal.

(vi) The appellants/claimants are not entitled to any interest for the

condoned delay (default) period, if any.

(vii) The claimants shall pay requisite Court fee before the receipt of

the copy of the judgment for the enhanced compensation.

(viii) There shall be no order as to costs.

21.04.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/no Speaking/Non-speaking Order