P.Ravi vs Kaliyannan
2021 Latest Caselaw 24242 Mad

                                                                            CMA.No.3433 of 2021




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 09.12.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                                CMA No.3433 of 2021

                     1.P.Ravi
                     2.Minor P.R.Dharun
                     3.M.Palaniyappan
                     4.Amarjothi                                            ... Appellants
                     (Minor Petitioner No.2 is rep. by his
                       next friend Guardian Father Ravi)

                                                             Vs

                     1.Kaliyannan

                     2.Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
                       No.5, Annai Plaza, First floor,
                       Kovai Road, Karur-639 002.                           ... Respondents


                     Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the

                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in

                     MCOP.No.253 of 2012, dated 28.06.2017, on the file of the Motor

                     Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Sankari.


                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   CMA.No.3433 of 2021



                                           For Appellants      : Mr.Arthanareeshwaran
                                                                 for Mr.C.Paraneedharan


                                                    JUDGMENT

The claimants viz., husband, son and parents of deceased Punitha,

who died in a motor accident that occurred on 24.12.2011 sought for a

compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- contending that the said Punitha

was employed as a Tailor and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. It

was also contended that she was eight months pregnant at the time of the

accident and the child also died because of the accident. The loss of

dependency, consortium and love and affection was computed and claimed

at Rs.15,00,000/-.

2.The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the

driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TN34-J-0355 did not

have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was also contended

that the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN28-AY-1350 was not

negligent and he drove the vehicle with all due care and caution.

3.The second respondent Insurance Company, which is the insurer

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3433 of 2021

of the lorry claimed that the contribution to the accident by the driver of the

two wheeler would be more compared to the contribution of the driver of the

lorry. The first respondent, who is the owner of the lorry remained exparte.

4.Considering the fact that accident occurred when Punitha was

travelling as a pillion rider along with her husband in the motor cycle

bearing Registration No.TN34-J-0355 and considering the manner in which

the accident had occurred, the Tribunal concluded that the negligence on the

part of the driver of the lorry is cause for the accident and there was no

negligence or contribution on the part of the driver of the motor cycle. On

the said conclusion, the Tribunal held that the entire compensation has to be

paid by the second respondent Insurance Company. On the quantum, the

Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.7,000/-, it added 50% towards

future prospects relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others reported in 2013 (2) TN

MAC 55 (SC). After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the Tribunal

adopted the multiplier of 17 and arrived at the total loss of dependency at

Rs.16,07,000/-. As regards the conventional damages, the Tribunal granted a

sum of Rs.4,28,000/-. Thus, the total compensation was arrived at

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3433 of 2021

Rs.20,35,000/- terming the same as meagre. The appellants have sought for

enhancement in this appeal.

5.I have heard Mr.Arthanareeshwaran, learned counsel appearing

for the appellants.

6.Mr.Arthanareeshwaran would contend that fixation of

Rs.7,000/- per month as the income is very low. Considering the profession

namely, Tailoring and the date of the accident, the learned counsel would

submit that, the Tribunal must have taken atleast a sum of Rs.10,000/-. He

would also fault the Tribunal for not awarding any amount towards medical

expenses.

7.I have considered the contention by the learned counsel for the

appellants. I am unable to agree with them.

8.No doubt, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income at

Rs.7,000/- which is lesser than what has been claimed, but considering the

date of the accident namely, 24.12.2011 and the fact that the Tribunal has

applied future prospects at 50%, I am of the considered opinion that any

possible addition has been offset by the increase under the head of future

prospects. I therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the award. In

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3433 of 2021

fact, the award under the conventional heads can be said to be on the higher

side. However the Insurance Company has not filed an appeal, I do not see

any reason to entertain this appeal, the appeal is therefore dismissed. No

costs.

09.12.2021

vs Index: No Speaking order

To

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Sankari.

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

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3433 of 2021

vs

CMA No.3433 of 2021

09.12.2021

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