Madras High Court
Thotti vs S.Mollakan on 26 July, 2021
C.M.A.No.1932 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No.1932 of 2021
Thotti .. Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Mollakan
2.The Branch Manager,
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,
Empire Arcade, No.156/1,
Omalur Main Road,
Opp. to New Bus Stand,
Salem – 636 001. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
05.10.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.358 of 2017 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court,
Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj
For R2 : Mrs.R.Sreevidhya
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1932 of 2021
compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 05.10.2018 made in
M.C.O.P.No.358 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.358 of 2017 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions
Court, Krishnagiri. She filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation for the death of her son viz., S.Karthick, who
died in the accident that took place on 31.07.2016.
3.According to the appellant, on 31.07.2016 at about 19.30 hours
(07.30 P.M.), while the said S.Karthick was riding the Bajaj Pulsar
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 24 AF 3652 from Alapatty to
Kodugur on the Krishnagiri – Rayakottai road near Velakalahalli Koot Road,
the driver of the tractor bearing Registration No.TN 24 AE 2368 belonging to
1st respondent, drove the same in a rash, reckless, negligent manner at an
uncontrollable speed, without sounding horn and without adhering to the
rules of the road, came from the opposite direction and dashed on the
motorcycle driven by the said S.Karthick and caused the accident. In the
accident, the said S.Karthick sustained injuries on the left side of his head,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1932 of 2021
forehead, mouth, lacerated injury on his chest, fracture of his left leg knee
region and other grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the said
S.Karthick was taken to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Krishnagiri.
The duty Doctor examined the said S.Karthick and declared that he died on
the way to Hospital. Therefore, the appellant being the Mother of the said
S.Karthick filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation for the death of her son against the
respondents, being the owner and insurer of the tractor respectively.
4.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the tractor belonging to 1st respondent and directed the
respondents jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.40,33,856/- as
compensation to the appellant.
5.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the
award dated 05.10.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.358 of 2017, the appellant has
come out with the present appeal.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that at the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1932 of 2021
time of accident, the deceased was aged 22 years, working as Driver in Army
and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The monthly income fixed
by the Tribunal at Rs.24,222/- is meagre. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court, [Sarla
Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], the Tribunal
ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased
instead of deducting 50%, as the appellant, who is a widowed mother is the
only dependant of the deceased. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards transportation and loss of love and affection and prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company contended that the Tribunal considering Ex.P9/salary details of the
deceased, has rightly fixed a sum of Rs.24,222/- as monthly income of the
deceased and the same is not meagre. The deceased was a bachelor at the time
of accident and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal
expenses of the deceased. The enhancement granted by the Tribunal towards
future prospects of the deceased at 50% is excessive and the amount awarded
by the Tribunal towards filial consortium at Rs.80,000/- is highly excessive. In
view of the same, the appellant is not entitled to any enhancement. The total
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1932 of 2021
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.40,33,856/- is highly excessive
and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials on record.
9.It is the claim of the appellant/claimant in the claim petition that her
son was aged 22 years, working as Driver in Army and was earning a sum of
Rs.30,000/- per month. To prove the avocation and income of the deceased,
the appellant marked the salary particulars of the deceased as Ex.P9. As per
Ex.P9, the deceased was getting a sum of Rs.24,222/- as monthly income. The
Tribunal considering the same, has fixed a sum of Rs.24,222/- as monthly
income of the deceased and the same is not meagre. The deceased was a
permanent job holder, as he was working in Army. The Tribunal considering
the same and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), [National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others], rightly granted 50% enhancement towards future
prospects of the deceased. As per Exs.P6 & P9, the deceased was aged 24
years at the time of accident. The Tribunal following the judgment of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1932 of 2021
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court,
[Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another],
rightly applied multiplier '18'. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of
accident and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal
expenses of the deceased. Thus, by fixing a sum of Rs.24,222/- as monthly
income, granting 50% enhancement towards future prospects, applying
multiplier '18' and deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased,
the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.39,23,856/- as compensation towards
loss of dependency and the same is not meagre. The amounts awarded by the
Tribunal towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are just and reasonable
and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium and the same is excessive. In view of
the same, the appellant is not entitled to any amount towards transportation
and loss of love and affection and the total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal at Rs.40,33,856/- is not interfered with.
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum
of Rs.40,33,856/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the appellant,
along with interest and costs is confirmed. The respondents are jointly and
severally directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1932 of 2021
less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.358
of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional
District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri. On such deposit, the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, after
adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary
applications before the Tribunal. The appellant is not entitled to any interest
for the delay period as per the order of this Court dated 02.07.2021 in
C.M.P.No.6993 of 2021 in C.M.A.SR.No.36768 of 2021. No costs.
26.07.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1932 of 2021
krk
C.M.A.No.1932 of 2021
26.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
