Madras High Court
M/S.The New India Assurance ... vs R.Revathy on 22 April, 2021
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 22.04.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.13251 of 2020
M/s.The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
No.45, Moore Street,
Chennai-600 001. .. Appellant
Versus
1.R.Revathy
2.S.P.Gopalakrishnan .. Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019
passed in M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2013 by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, (II Additional District Court), Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
For appellant : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
For respondents: Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj for R1
R-2 set ex-parte before the Tribunal
Page No.1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Subbiah, J)
Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company as
against the Award dated 13.12.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2013 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (II Additional District
Court), Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2. The first respondent in this appeal is the mother of the deceased
Gobesh, who sustained injuries in the accident that had occurred on
22.08.2006, involving his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-J-
8849 and the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-04-C-8929, owned
by the second respondent, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance
Company.
3. It is the case of the first respondent/claimant before the Tribunal
that, on 22.08.2006 at about 17.30 hours, when the deceased Gobesh was
riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-J-8849 on the
Poonamallee By-Pass Road, near Alpha International Leather Company, the
driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-04-C-8929, which
Page No.2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
was going in front of the deceased motor cycle, applied sudden brake, as a
result of which, the motor cycle of the deceased hit the lorry on the left side
back wheel. According to the claimant, since the driver of the lorry had
suddenly applied brake without minding the vehicles coming behind the
lorry, the deceased hit the lorry and sustained grievous and multiple injuries
all over his body and died on the way to the hospital. It is the further case of
the claimant that, at the time of accident, the deceased was earning a sum of
Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month by engaging himself in coolie
work. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statement before
the Tribunal denying the averments made by the claimant. The Insurance
Company submitted that the second respondent's driver, who drove the lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-20-J-8849, was not having a valid licence to
drive the lorry, and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
any compensation to the claimant. Hence, the Insurance Company prayed
for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. In order to prove the claim, the first respondent/claimant examined
Page No.3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
herself as P.W.1 before the Tribunal, besides P.W.2 was examined and
Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance
Company, R.W.1 was examined, besides Ex.R1 and R2 were marked.
6. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence available on
record, had come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry bearing
Registration No.TN-20-J-8849, owned by the second respondent and
insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Tribunal
passed an Award for a sum of Rs.17,83,600/- as compensation and the
break-up details of the same are tabulated below:
Sl. No. Heads under which the amounts are Amounts awarded
awarded by the Tribunal by the Tribunal
(in Rs.)
1 Total loss of income 17,13,600
2 Loss of estate 15,000
3 Loss of love and affection 40,000
4 Funeral expenses 15,000
Total 17,83,600
Challenging the above said Award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company
had preferred this appeal.
Page No.4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance
Company submitted that had the deceased driven his two wheeler by giving
sufficient space, he would have survived the accident. But, on the other
hand, he had driven the two wheeler with very close proximity, as a result of
which, he could not have control over his vehicle when the driver of the
lorry applied brake. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to
have fixed entire negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.
8. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
submitted that the Tribunal had taken Rs.9,000/- as notional monthly
income of the deceased, which is extremely on the higher side. Since the
accident had occurred in the year 2006, Rs.9,000/- fixed by the Tribunal as
notional monthly income of the deceased, may be reduced to Rs.4,000/-.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company further
submitted that the Tribunal, while calculating the loss of income, has
deducted only 1/3 towards personal expenses. Since the deceased was a
Bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards
personal expenses. Thus, the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Page No.5/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
Tribunal needs appropriate reduction.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/claimant made his submissions supporting the Award passed by
the Tribunal.
10. Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have
carefully perused the entire materials available on record.
11. It is an admitted fact that the accident had occurred only on the
left side back wheel of the lorry. As contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant/Insurance Company, had the deceased driven the two wheeler
by maintaining sufficient space, he would have survived the accident. At the
same time, had the driver of the lorry taken some caution while applying
brake, the deceased would not have hit the lorry. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that contributory negligence may equally be fixed on the part of the
rider of the two wheeler as well as on the part of the driver of the lorry.
Accordingly, the negligence is fixed at 50% on the part of the driver of the
lorry and 50% on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler.
12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal,
fixed Rs.9,000/- as the notional monthly income of the deceased and added
40% towards future prospectus and arrived at Rs.12,600/- (9000 + 3600) as
Page No.6/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
the monthly income of the deceased. Absolutely, we do not find any
infirmity in fixing Rs.9,000/- by the Tribunal as the monthly income of the
deceased. Hence, we are not inclined to reduce the monthly income of
R.9,000/- fixed by the Tribunal to any other lesser sum. However, we are of
the opinion, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, since
the deceased was a Bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal
expenses, whereas, the Tribunal has deducted only 1/3 towards the personal
expenses of the deceased. Hence, we are inclined to re-calculate the
compensation amount by deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of
the deceased. If 50% is deducted from Rs.12,600/-, it comes to Rs.6,300/-.
The annual income of the deceased works out to Rs.75,600/- (6300 x 12).
As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.)
and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in
2009 (6) SCC 121, the multiplier to be applied is "17" for the age group of
21 to 25 years. Since the deceased died at the age of 25 years, the loss of
income works out to Rs.12,85,200/- (75,600 x 17). Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.12,85,200/- (6300 X 12 x 17) is hereby fixed under the head "total loss
of income" as against Rs.17,13,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Page No.7/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
13. Considering the factual aspects of the case, we are inclined to
award a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head "transportation charges", since
the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the above head.
Accordingly, Rs.15,000/- is hereby awarded under the head "transportation
charges".
14. Except the above modification, the amounts awarded under the
other heads by the Tribunal, will remain unaltered and therefore, they are
confirmed. In effect, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, in comparison
with the amounts now awarded by this Court, are tabulated hereunder:
Heads under which the Amounts Amounts
Sl. awarded by the awarded by
amounts are awarded
No. Tribunal (in this Court
Rs.) (in Rs.)
1 Total loss of income 17,13,600 12,85,200
2 Loss of estate 15,000 15,000
3 Loss of love and affection 40,000 40,000
4 Funeral expenses 15,000 15,000
5 Transportation charges - 15,000
Total 17,83,600 13,70,200
15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The total amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.17,83,600/- is hereby reduced
to Rs.13,70,200/-. Since there is contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased, the claimant is entitled only for 50% of the compensation amount
Page No.8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
now awarded by this Court. Therefore, the claimant/first respondent is
entitled to get Rs.6,85,100/- (50% of Rs.13,70,200) as total compensation,
which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition
till the date of payment. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the above said sum of Rs.6,85,100/- along with interest, and costs,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
if the Award amount is not yet deposited so far. On such deposit being made
by the appellant/Insurance Company, the first respondent/claimant is
permitted to withdraw the entire award amount as computed above, along
with accrued interest, and costs, after adjusting the amount(s) if any already
withdrawn by her, in accordance with law. Any amount lying in excess in
the deposit, is permitted to be withdrawn by the Insurance Company. There
shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal. Consequently, C.M.P. is
closed.
(R.P.S.J) (S.K.J)
22.04.2021
Speaking Order: Yes
vga/cs
Page No.9/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(II Additional District Court,
Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
Page No.10/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 22.04.2021 in
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
R.SUBBIAH, J
and
S.KANNAMMAL, J
cs
C.M.A.No.1801 of 2020
22.04.2021
Page No.11/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
