Madras High Court
Ruckmani vs Sheeja Chandrakanthan on 29 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
1.Ruckmani
2.Marimuthu
3.Murugesan ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Sheeja Chandrakanthan
2.The National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Div No.10, 803-A, 8th Floor,
Tower C, Connectus Building,
Opp. New Delhi Railway, Bhavbhuti Marg,
New Delhi – 110 002.
3.The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office 73, Perundurai Road,
Erode – 638 011. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.842
of 2017, dated 10.01.2020, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Special District Judge Court, Erode.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 10
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
For Third Respondent : Mr.J.Chandran
*****
JUDGMENT
The claimants are the appellants in this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal. They are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated
10.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special
District Judge Court), Erode in M.C.O.P.No.842 of 2017.
2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has arrived
at a total compensation of Rs.12,76,130/- and has deducted a sum of
Rs.3,19,033/- towards 25% contributory negligence of the deceased
Ramasamy and has awarded a sum of Rs.9,57,097/- (12,76,130 –
3,19,033) together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of deposit along with proportionate cost to the
appellants/claimants.
3. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed for
enhancement of compensation primarily on the ground that the Tribunal
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 10
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
has wrongly deducted 25% towards contributory negligence of the
deceased Ramasamy and that the Tribunal has also wrongly considered
the notional income of the deceased Ramasamy as Rs.9,000/- per month
while arriving the above compensation. That apart, it is submitted that as
per the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Thangadurai and Another, in its
Judgment dated 13.04.2018 passed in C.M.A.Nos.624 & 2413 of 2016,
deduction towards contributory negligence can be made only on the
amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency and not on the
other amounts awarded under the conventional heads. In this connection,
a reference was made to paragraph No.10 of the said decision which is
reproduced below:-
10.Since the claimant lost his avocation, multiplier
method has to be adopted to calculate the loss of
income. As per the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & another, reported in 2009
(2) TNMAC 1 (SC), the appropriate multiplier is
“14” for the age of 42 years. Therefore, loss of
income comes to Rs.15,72,480/- (11700 x 12 x 14 x
80/100). Since 20% contributory negligence has
been fixed on the claimant, 80% income alone has
been taken.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 10
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
4. On behalf of the second respondent Insurance Company, it is
submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree is well reasoned and
requires no interference as the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion
and awarded a just compensation under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. It is further submitted that the deceased was negligent at the time
of the accident in as much as he crossed the road negligently and
therefore became an accessory to his own death due to the accident.
Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal has come to a fair conclusion
that the deceased was partially responsible for the accident and the death.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second
respondent Insurance Company. I have perused the impugned Judgment
and Decree passed by the Tribunal.
7. In my view, the Tribunal has come to a fair conclusion on facts
based on the evidence, particularly oral evidence and the deposition, that
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 10
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
the deceased was also negligent and contributed to the accident and his
death. That being the case, I am inclined to uphold decision of the
Tribunal that the deceased contributed to the accident and his death.
8. At the same time, the Tribunal has only considered the notional
income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month. The deceased was said
to be a Vendor of Tapioca selling it from place to place and was riding a
moped bearing registration No.TN-36-S-1928 at the time of the accident.
Considering the fact that the deceased was self employed and the vendor
of Tapioca on the TVS Xl Super Heavy Duty, considering the accident is
of the year 2017 and considering the fact that the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
(2014) 2 SCC 735 was rendered in the context of an accident in 2008, I
am of the view that to award a just compensation, the Tribunal ought to
have considered slightly higher income of the deceased for the aforesaid
purpose. Therefore, I am inclined to re-quantify the compensation by
considering the notional income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per
month.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 10
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
9. There shall be an addition of 10% towards future prospects as
per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
The deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident though
there are no direct evidences. Ex.P19 Post mortem report indicates that he
would be aged about 58 years. The age of the first respondent who is the
wife of the deceased is 52 years at the time of filing of the claim petition.
Considering the age of the first respondent, conclusion of the Tribunal
that the deceased was aged about 58 years based on the Ex.P19 Post
mortem report appears to be reasonable. Under these circumstances,
compensation under the loss of dependency is re-quantified as follows:-
Loss of dependency:-
Monthly Income of the deceased - Rs.12,000/-
Annual Income (12,000 x 12) : Rs.1,44,000/-
Add: Future prospectus 10%
(1,44,000 x 10/100) : Rs. 14,400/-
------------------
: Rs.1,58,400/-
Less: Personal Expenses 1/3
(1,58,400 x 1/3) : Rs. 52,800/-
------------------
: Rs. 97,600/-
Multiplier – 16 (97,600 x 9) : Rs.8,78,400/-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 10
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
10. Since the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Thangadurai and Another, referred to supra
has held that there shall be a deduction towards contributory negligence
only on the loss of dependency and not on the conventional heads, the
25% contributory negligence is to be deducted from the amount arrived
towards loss of dependency as follows:-
Loss of dependency arrived by this Court : Rs.8,78,400/-
Less : Contributory negligence at 25%
(8,78,400 x 25/100) : Rs.2,19,600/-
------------------
Total : Rs.6,58,800/-
------------------
11. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,57,097/-
awarded by the Tribunal is re-quantified as follows:-
Heads Amount
Loss of dependency Rs.6,58,800/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of clothes Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 7 of 10
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
Heads Amount
Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/-
Transportation Rs. 10,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs.4,33,330/-
Rs.12,22,130/-
Total rounded off to
Rs.12,23,000/-
12. Thus, the second respondent Insurance Company is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.12,23,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs, less any
amount already deposited in the method of payment ordered by the
Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this Judgment.
13. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their
shares together with interest and costs in the same proportion awarded by
the Tribunal, less any amount already withdrawn, by filing suitable
application before the Tribunal.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 8 of 10
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
14. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No cost.
29.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
jen
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge Court, Erode.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 9 of 10
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen
C.M.A.No.1937 of 2020
26.04.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 10 of 10
