Madras High Court
The Divisional Forest Officer vs S.Venkatachalapathy on 10 February, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
and
C.M.P.Nos.11859 of 2020 and 1095 of 2021
C.M.A.No.1613 of 2020:
The Divisional Forest Officer,
Social Forest Division,
Chittoor District,
Andhara Pradesh State. ... Appellant
vs
1.S.Venkatachalapathy
S/o.Singaravelu Naidu
2.Kalavathi
W/o.Venkatachalapathi ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/12
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
C.M.A.No.165 of 2021:
The Divisional Forest Officer,
Social Forest Division,
Chittoor District,
Andhara Pradesh State. ... Appellant
vs
1.Ashwini
W/o.Late V.Nishanth Kumar
2.Minor Thanisha
D/o.Late Nishanth Kumar
(minor represented by her next
friend/guardian mother Ashwini)
3.S.Venkatachalapathy
S/o.Singaravelu Naidu
4.Kalavathi
W/o.Venkatachalapathi ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed u/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2018 passed in
M.C.O.P.Nos.213 and 214 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Dev Narendran,
[in both appeals] Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.Mukund R.Pandian
[in both appeals]
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J]
These matters are heard through Video Conferencing.
2. Since both appeals arise out of a common award, they are disposed of
by a common judgment.
3. These appeals have been filed by the appellant/Divisional Forest
Officer, Social Forest Division, Chittoor District, Andhara Pradesh State,
against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.213
and 214 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District
Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Respondents in C.M.A.No.1613 of 2020 (M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2017) are
parents of the deceased Udhayakumar. Respondents in C.M.A.No.165 of 2021
(M.C.O.P.No.213 of 2017) are wife, minor daughter and parents of the
deceased V.Nishanthkumar. The deceased were brothers. On 19.02.2015 while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
the deceased V.Nishanthkumar was riding the TVS Victor Motor Cycle bearing
Registration No.AP-03-K-3022 having the deceased Udhayakumar and one
Chandran as pillion riders, at about 08.00 p.m., when they were proceeding
near Gadduru Cross Road on Punganur – Panjani main road in Panjani Mandal,
a Bolero Car, belonging to appellant, bearing Registration No.AP-03-AQ-3953,
came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the
two-wheeler owing to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died
on the spot. Respondents in both the appeals have filed separate claim petitions
seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (in each claim petition) for
the death of deceased.
5. Resisting the claim made by respondents/claimants, appellant filed
counters inter alia contending that the accident had not occurred in the manner
as projected by respondents/claimants. Appellant also denied the age,
occupation and income of the deceased in both claim petitions.
6. To prove their case, respondents/claimants examined 4 witnesses and
marked 21 documents. On the side of appellant, none were examined and no
exhibits were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
7. On appreciation of materials and the entire evidence on record, the
Tribunal, arrived at a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the appellant and held that the appellant is
liable to pay compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as
follows:
Sl. Compensation awarded under M.C.O.P.No. M.C.O.P.No.
No. the head 213/2017 214 of 2017
1. Loss of dependency 27,21,600/- 22,68,000/-
2. Loss of consortium 40,000/- -
3. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/-
4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-
Total 27,91,600/- 22,98,000/-
The said sums were directed to be paid together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of deposit. Questioning the finding rendered by
the Tribunal regarding liability as well as quantum of compensation, appellant
has filed the present appeals.
8. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for appellant
submits that before the Tribunal, appellant had taken a specific defence of
contributory negligence stating that the deceased had also equally responsible
for the accident. However, the Tribunal, without considering the said defence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
had fixed the entire liability on the shoulder of the appellant. The next
submission is that the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.12,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively without any documentary evidence.
Submitting as above, learned Additional Government Pleader prays this Court
to fix 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and a sum of
Rs.10,000/- as the monthly notional income of each of the deceased and
accordingly, modify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/claimants made his
submissions supporting the award passed by the Tribunal.
10. This Court has considered the rival submissions. Perused the
materials on record.
11. The question, which is to be considered by this Court is with regard
to the finding rendered by the Tribunal in respect of the aspects 'rash and
negligence' and 'quantum of compensation'.
11 (i) Rash and negligence:
Though the appellant had taken a specific defence of contributory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
negligence on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler, they have not chosen to
adduce any oral evidence before the Tribunal. However, on the side of
respondents/claimants, one Premkumar, eye-witness to the occurrence, was
examined as PW-3, whose evidence totally supported the case of
respondents/claimants. Ex.P1 - FIR, was registered only against the driver of
the Bolero Car. Hence, on the basis of Ex.P1 - FIR and the evidence of PW-3,
eye-witness to the occurrence, the Tribunal rendered a finding that the accident
had occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the Car by its driver.
On proper appreciation of materials and evidence, the Tribunal had fixed the
entire liability on the appellant. This Court does not find any infirmity in the
finding rendered by the Tribunal.
11 (ii) Quantum of compensation:
C.M.A.No.1613 of 2020 (M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2017):
It is the case of respondents/claimants that the deceased Udhayakumar
was aged 22 at the time of accident and was working as a Supervisor at
R.G.Associates, Malur and was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. To establish the same,
Ex.P16 – B.Tech Bonafide Certificate and Ex.P17 - Appointment Order were
marked. However, salary certificate was not marked. Hence, the Tribunal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
considering the age, educational qualification and avocation of the deceased,
fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Since the
deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses,
which works out to Rs.7,500/ - (15,000 – 7,500), added 40% towards future
prospects, which works out to Rs.10,500/- (7500 + 3000) and arrived at annual
income at Rs.1,26,000/- (10500 * 12) and applied multiplier '18' and awarded a
sum of Rs.22,68,000/- (126000 * 18) as compensation under the head 'loss of
income'. This Court finds that the approach adopted by the Tribunal in arriving
at the compensation under the head 'loss of income' is well-justified. The
amount awarded under the other heads is also reasonable.
C.M.A.No.165 of 2021 (M.C.O.P.No.213 of 2017):
It is the case of respondents/claimants that the deceased Nishantkumar
was aged 25 at the time of accident and was working as a Common Gold
Appraiser at Roopam Jewellers, Kuppam and was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m.
Though respondents/claimants marked Ex.P4 – Salary Certificate of deceased,
the same was not proved. Hence, the Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.P5 – BSS
Skill School Certificate arrived at a finding that the deceased completed Gold
Appraiser Course and accordingly, fixed a sum of Rs.12,000/- as the monthly
income of the deceased. Since the claimants are four, the Tribunal deducted 1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
towards personal expenses, which works out to Rs.9,000/ - (12000 – 3000),
added 40% towards future prospects, which works out to Rs.12,600/- (9000 +
3600) and arrived at annual income at Rs.1,51,200/- (12600 * 12) and applied
multiplier '18' and awarded a sum of Rs.27,21,600/- (151200 * 18) as
compensation under the head 'loss of income'. This Court finds that the
approach adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at the compensation under the
head 'loss of income' is well-justified. The amount awarded under the other
heads is also reasonable.
12. This Court finds that in both the claim petitions, the award passed by
the Tribunal, is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court as well as by various High Courts and the same does not require
any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the finding rendered by the
Tribunal regarding the aspects of 'rash and negligent' and the quantum of
compensation is hereby confirmed.
In the result,
(i) C.M.A.No.1613 of 2020 is dismissed. Appellant is directed to deposit the
compensation of Rs.22,98,000/-, less the amount already deposited, together
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. On
such deposit being made by appellant, respondents/parents of the deceased
are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, as apportioned by
Tribunal, along with accrued/proportionate interest and costs, less the
amount, if any already withdrawn by them, by filing necessary application
before the Tribunal.
(ii)C.M.A.No.165 of 2021 is dismissed. Appellant is directed to deposit the
compensation of Rs.27,91,600/-, less the amount already deposited, together
with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. On
such deposit being made by appellant, respondents 1, 3 and 4/wife and
parents of the deceased are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, as
apportioned by Tribunal, along with accrued/proportionate interest and
costs, less the amount, if any already withdrawn by them, by filing necessary
application before the Tribunal. The share of second respondent/minor
daughter of deceased shall be deposited in a fixed deposit in any
nationalised bank till she attains majority. First respondent/mother of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
minor is entitled to withdraw interest thereon once in three months towards
taking care of the minor.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[R.P.S., J] [S.S.K., J]
10.02.2021
Index: yes/no
Internet:yes/no
gm
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court for
Motor Accident Claims Cases,
Krishnagiri.
R.SUBBIAH, J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
C.M.A.Nos.1613 of 2020 and 165 of 2021
10.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
