Madras High Court
Sundaram vs Ranjithkumar on 8 April, 2021
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 08.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
1. Sundaram
2. Nagalakshmi .. Appellants
Versus
1. Ranjithkumar
2. Branch Manager,
Bharat AXA General Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.28, First Floor,
Doddane Kudi,
Bangalore. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2019 made in
MCOP.No.92 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Sub Judge, Udumalaipettai.
For appellant : Mr.C.Thangaraju
For respondents
for R1 : No Appearance
for R2 : Mr.K.Poomalai
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/9
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Subbiah, J)
The appeal is heard through video conferencing.
2. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Judge, Udumalaipettai, in MCOP No.92
of 2015 dated 08.03.2019, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants
for enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. The appellants / claimants are the parents of the deceased Raju Babu.
It is the case of the claimants that on 20.03.2013, the deceased was travelling
as a loadman in APE Truck bearing Registration No.TN 78 X 1973, belonging
to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent-Insurance
Company, which was driven by one Madhankumar on Pollachi-Udumalpet
National Highway. While the said Truck was nearing a bridge in Kolarpatti
Village, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the bridge. Due to the impact, the said Raju Babu suffered severe head
injury and died on the spot. It is the further case of the claimants that at the
time of the accident, the deceased was earning monthly a sum of Rs.20,000/-
by working as a loadman in the milk van, newspaper hawker and also as a
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
painter. The claimants are aged more than 70 years and the deceased was the
only breadwinner of the family. Due to the sudden demise of their son, the
appellants are starving for their livelihood. Hence, they made a claim for a sum
of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.
4. The said case was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a
detailed counter affidavit. It is the specific defence of the Insurance Company
that the deceased had travelled in the APE Truck bearing Registration No.TN
78 X 1973 as an unathorised passenger. In the said Truck, 3 persons travelled
as against the seating capacity of 2 and the driver of the said vehicle did not
possess driving licence at the time of the accident. In view of the above
violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation to the claimants.
5. In order to prove the claim on the side of the appellants / claimants,
the father of the deceased examined himself as PW1, besides examining one
Mummoorthy as eyewitness as PW2 and 13 documents were marked as
Exs.P1 to P13. On the side of the Insurance Company, RW1 and RW2 were
examined and 4 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
6. The Tribunal after analysing the entire evidence came to the
conclusion that the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the APE Truck bearing Registration No.TN 78 X 1973 and awarded a
compensation of Rs.11,38,400/- to the claimants. However, as the driver of the
said vehicle did not possess any licence at the time of the accident, which is a
violation of policy condition, the second respondent / Insurance Company is
directed to pay the compensation at first instance and thereafter, they are
directed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The break-up
details of the amounts awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:
S.No. Compensation was awarded under Amount in Rs.
the heads
1. Loss of Dependency 10,58,400
2. Loss of Love and Affection 50,000
3. Funeral Expenses 15,000
4. Loss of Estate 15,000
Total 11,38,400
7. Now, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants before the Tribunal that though the father of the deceased,
PW1 gave evidence stating that his son was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per
month by working as loadman, newspaper hawker and painter, the Tribunal
has taken only a sum of Rs.7,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, which
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
resulted in awarding an inadequate amount of Rs.10,58,400/- under the head
"Loss of Dependency". Hence, by fixing a sum of Rs.20,000/- as monthly
income of the deceased, the amount awarded under the head "Loss of
Dependency" may be re-calcualted. Further, the Tribunal has awarded only a
total sum of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants under the head "Loss of Love and
Affection" to the claimants instead of awarding Rs.40,000/- to each of the
claimant.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company made his
submissions supporting the awarded passed by the Tribunal.
9. Keeping in mind the above submissions made on either side, we have
carefully perused the materials available on record.
10. It is not in dispute that the father of the deceased adduced evidence
stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, but
except oral statement, no documentary evidence was produced to support his
oral statement. In the absence of any documentary proof, we are not inclined to
fix Rs.20,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. At the same time,
considering the cost of living prevailing at the time of the accident, i.e., in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
year 2013, the Tribunal ought to have fixed at least a sum of Rs.9,000/- as
monthly income of the deceased, instead of Rs.7,000/-.
11. Thus, if a sum of Rs.9,000/- is taken as monthly income of the
deceased and 40% of the same is added towards future prospects, the amount
works out to Rs.12,600/- [9,000 + 3,600]. Since the deceased was bachelor,
50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses and if so
deducted, the amount works out to Rs.6,300/- . Considering the age of the
deceased being 24 years at the time of the accident, if multiplier “18” is
applied, the "Loss of Dependency" comes to Rs.13,60,800/- [6,300 x 12 x 18].
12. As per the oft-quoted judgment of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], a sum of
Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded to each of the legal heirs of the deceased
towards "Loss of Love and Affection". Hence, the total sum of Rs.50,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards “Loss of Love and Affection” is set aside,
instead a sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded under such head by awarding each of
the claimant a sum of Rs.40,000/-.
13. The sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral
expenses appears to be on the lower side and hence, the same is enhanced to
Rs.40,000/-.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
14. Since no amount was awarded under the head “Transportation
Expenses”, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded under such head.
15. The sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head “Loss of Estate”
appears to be just and proper and hence, the same is confirmed.
16. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants / claimants is
re-calculated and tabulated below:
S. Heads under which the amount Amount awarded Amount awarded
No. was awarded by the Tribunal by the Tribunal by this Court
1. Loss of Dependency 10,58,400 13,60,800
2. Loss of Love and Affection 50,000 80,000
3. Funeral Expenses 15,000 40,000
4. Loss of Estate 15,000 15,000
5. Transportation Expenses - 5,000
Total 11,38,400 15,00,800
rounded of to
Rs.15,00,000/-
17. i) The total compensation of Rs.11,38,400/- awarded by the Tribunal
is hereby enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/-, which shall carry interest at 7.5% from
the date of claim petition till the date of payment. The Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the total compensation awarded by this Court before the
Tribunal, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited, within a period
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares. The
claimants shall pay necessary Court fee, on the enhanced compensation. The
apportionment of shares as fixed by the Tribunal to the claimants is hereby
confirmed.
ii) The second respondent / Insurance Company is permitted to recover
the above compensation amount from the first respondent herein / owner of the
APE Truck, after making payments to the claimants.
18. With the above observations and directions, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
[R.P.S., J] [S.K., J]
08.04.2021
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
pvs
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Sub Judge, Udumalaipettai
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
R.SUBBIAH, J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
pvs
C.M.A. No.3169 of 2019
08.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
