Suppulakshmi vs Senthil Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 23674 Mad

                                                                                      CMA No.791 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 02.12.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                                     CMA No.791 of 2020

                     1. Suppulakshmi
                     2. Shanthi
                     3. Viji                                                       ... Appellants

                                                             Vs

                     1. Senthil Kumar

                     2. The Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
                        1st Floor, Dhanam Tower, Binny Main Road,
                        Park Road, Tiruppur, Coimbatore – 641 601.
                        Branch at 3rd Floor, 408, Perundurai Road,
                        Erode – 638 011.                                           ... Respondents

                     Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.
                     No.513 of 2017, dated 25.11.2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
                     Tribunal / Special District Judge, Erode.


                                   For Appellants      : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran

                                   For Respondents     : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari for R2


                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   CMA No.791 of 2020

                                                   JUDGMENT

The claimants seek enhancement of compensation awarded at

Rs.4,95,000/- for the death of one Vadivel, the husband of the 1 st claimant

and the father of the claimants 2 and 3.

2. The said Vadivel died in a road accident that occurred on

07.05.2017. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to

collision between the two vehicles. While the deceased is said to be driving

a Moped bearing Registration No.TN 34 D 1760, the offending vehicle TVS

Excel belonging to the 1st respondent was driven by the driver in the rash

and negligent manner, dashed against him and as a result of the accident, he

suffered head injury which resulted in his death. The claimants who sought

for compensation of a sum of Rs.25 lakhs contending that the deceased was

earning Rs.21,000/- per month as a gold smith.

3. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending

that the deceased did not have a valid driving licence and the fact that he is

driving two wheeler without licence having been admitted, the deceased had

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.791 of 2020

himself contributed to the accident. It was also contended that the driver of

the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 34 U 5904 was not

negligent. The quantum of compensation claimed was termed as excessive.

4. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence on record,

concluded that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration

No.TN 34 U 5904 is responsible for the accident and held that the Insurance

Company is liable to pay compensation. On the quantum of compensation,

the learned Tribunal rejected the evidence of CW4 regarding the income of

the deceased. In the absence of any other evidence, the Tribunal took the

notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and had deducted

1/3rd towards personal expenses. The Tribunal took loss of dependency at

Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal arrived at yearly dependency at Rs.72,000/- and

applied multiplier of 5, and fixed Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of income.

The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses,

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards damage to

clothing and properties, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and

Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. Total award of the Tribunal came to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.791 of 2020

Rs.4,95,000/-. Terming the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as

meagre, the claimants have come up with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

5. Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/claimants would vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in

fixing the monthly income at Rs.9,000/- per month and the Tribunal erred in

rejecting the evidence of CW4.

6. Contending contra, Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari, learned counsel

appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the fact that the

deceased was riding a two wheeler without licence is admitted and

therefore, the Tribunal should have held him guilty of Contributory

negligence.

7. Though I see considerable force in the contention of the

learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, since the Tribunal

has taken the income at Rs.9,000/- when the deceased was aged 67 years at

the time of accident, I am unable to fault the Tribunal. The compensation

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.791 of 2020

awarded on the other heads is also very reasonable and it does not require

any interference. I do not see any ground to interfere with the award of the

Tribunal. The appeal therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No

costs.

02.12.2021

vum Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order

To

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special District Judge, Erode.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.791 of 2020

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

vum

CMA No.791 of 2020

02.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis