Madras High Court
Makbook 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. Makbook
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.6,80,400/- has to be awarded under the head of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014
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
5 Pain & sufferings Nil 10,000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014
Sl.No Heads Awarded by the Awarded by this
Tribunal Court
6 Loss of estate Nill 15,000
Total 3,76,000 7,77,400
14. In the result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly 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. 1,52,000/-
(iv) The 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.
(v) On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the
amount awarded as above by filing proper application before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014
(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
rts
To
1.The Additional District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
C.M.A.No.1228 of 2014
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
