Madras High Court
Manini vs M/S/Paramount Heavy Carriers on 24 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2552 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA. No.2552 of 2014
1.Manini
2.Tejamati Digal
3.Sibaraj Nayik ... Appellants
..Vs..
1.M/s/Paramount Heavy Carriers,
New No.65, Old No.34, Coral Merchant Street,
Chennai-600001.
2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.38, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600002. ...Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the Judgment and decree dated 21.04.2014 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1527 of 2006 on the file of Special Sub Judge I (Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Kalai Arasan
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
Respondent No.1 : Notice unserved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
C.M.A.No.2552 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated 21.04.2014 in
MCOP.No. 1527 of 2006 passed by the tribunal awarding compensation of
Rs.9,31,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the
claimants are before this Court for enhancement of compensation.
2. It is the case of the claimants/appellants herein that on
25.09.2005 at about 8.00 a.m, the deceased-Jikariya Nayik @ Munna was
riding in a Cycle from Melayyanavaram to Koyambedu on the Poonamallee
High Road, while he was proceeding near Nerkundram Bus Stop, the lorry
bearing no. TN-04-P-2656 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner came from behind and dashed against the deceased. Due to the
accident, the deceased died on spot. The claimants being legal heirs of
the deceased filed a claim petition before the tribunal, claiming
compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of Jikariya Nayik @ Munna.
3. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined
and Ex.P1 to P13 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no
witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
4. The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2552 of 2014
has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence on the
part of the driver of the lorry and being insurer of the lorry, Insurance
Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and awarded
Rs.9,31,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a
from the date of petition till realization.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
the deceased was working as a Lathe Machine Operator, earning
Rs.5,000/- p.m and Rs.50/- batta per day, if the deceased survived, his
present salary would be Rs.12,400/- However, the tribunal fixed monthly
income of Rs.6,000/- including future prospects. According to the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, the deceased was aged only 24
years at the time of the accident therefore, the tribunal ought to have
taken entire monthly income along with future prospects. The
compensation awarded under other heads are also in adequate, hence
seeks enhancement of compensation.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company objected for enhancement of compensation and submitted that
based on the evidence and documents, the tribunal has awarded
compensation to the claimants, which is fair and reasonable and does not
require any modification by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2552 of 2014
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and
perused the materials available on record.
8. It reveals from the record that Ex.P1/FIR was registered against
the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No. TN04-P-2656, it is clearly stated
that the driver of the lorry was at fault. There is no contra evidence on
the side of the respondent to disprove the negligence. In the absence, for
the same, the tribunal based on the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1/FIR has
come to the conclusion that the driver of the said lorry was solely
responsible for the accident and the insurance policy was also in existence
with the 2nd respondent/insurance company, hence the tribunal has
directed the 2nd respondent /insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation. This Court finds no error on the said decision of the
tribunal, accordingly, this Court confirms the negligence and liability fixed
by the tribunal.
9. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, PW1/wife of
the deceased has deposed that the deceased was working as a lathe
operation. Exhibit P6/Salary certificate and the evidence of PW2/employer
of the deceased marked by the claimants also confirms the same. The
tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- including
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2552 of 2014
future prospects by stating reason that the wife of the deceased receiving
pension and adopted multiplier 17. In view of principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma's case, future prospects to be
added in addition to the monthly income and as per the age of the
deceased who was 24 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier
adopted 17 by the tribunal is also required to be modified as multiplier 18.
Hence this Court is inclined to modify the compensation under the head
loss of pecuniary benefits by taking monthly income at Rs. 6,000/-,
adding future prospects at 40%, deducting 1/3 towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased and adopting multiplier 18 which comes
to Rs.12,09,000/-.
10. The tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head
'Loss of estate', hence this Court grants a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the
said head. The compensation awarded for Funeral expenses at
Rs.15,000/- is proper, the same is confirmed. The compensation awarded
by the tribunal under the heads loss of consortium and loss of love and
affection is reduced to Rs.40,000/- each. Thus the award of the tribunal
is modified by this Court as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2552 of 2014
Compensation Compensation
Heads awarded by the modified by this
tribunal Court
Rs. Rs.
Loss of Pecuniary 8,16,000/- 12,09,600
benefits
Loss of Consortium 50,000/- 40,000
Loss of Love and 50,000/- 40,000
affection
Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000
Loss of Estate .... 15,000
Total 9,31,000/- 13,19,600/-
(rounded of to
Rs.13,19,000/-)
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
and the compensation awarded by the tribunal at sum of Rs. 9,31,000/- is
enhanced to Rs. 13,19,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
12. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the entire compensation amount along with interest as modified by this
Court, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation as
modified by this Court along interest and costs as per the apportionment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2552 of 2014
fixed by the tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already
withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The
appellants/claimants are directed to pay the court fee for the enhanced
compensation amount payable, if any. No costs.
24.02.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
ak
To
1. The Special Sub Judge I
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2552 of 2014
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
ak
CMA.No.2552 of 2014
24.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
