Madras High Court
Kala vs S.Y.Anver Sheriff on 8 April, 2022
C.M.A.No.846 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A. No.846 of 2022
1.Kala
2.Kuttammal
3.Parvathi
4.Pushpa ... Petitioners/ Appellants
Vs
1.S.Y.Anver Sheriff
2.The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Officer, No.1,
C.S.I. Building, Officer Line,
Vellore.
3.Naga Raju
4.TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Chennai Operation, Rehiya Towers,
No.1/7, 9th Floor, Annasalai,
Chennai - 600002. ... Respondents/ Respondents
(No relief sought against the respondents 1, 3 & 4. Hence notice may be
dispense with)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.846 of 2022
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, to allow the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and enhance the
award passed in Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.2021 made in MCOP
No.239 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub
Court, Ranipet, Vellore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakarn
JUDGEMENT
The claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals Sub Court
Ranipet, Vellore in MCOP No.239 of 2015 are the appellants before this
Court. The appeal has been filed seeking an enhancement of the award
passed by the Tribunal below. The brief facts are as follows:
2. The appellants who are the children of one S.Kanniyappa have
filed the claim seeking compensation for the death of their 70 years old
father in a road accident that had occurred on 20.05.2015 when the deceased
was driving a Tata Ace bearing Registration No.AP 03 TA 1807 on Chittoor
to Vellore, Road. At that time the passenger bus belonging to the 1st
respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent was driven by its driver in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.846 of 2022
very rash and negligent manner and came in the opposite direction. Due to
the rash and negligent driving, the bus hit the Tata Ace causing severe head
injuries and multiple injuries to the deceased who died on spot. The
contention of the appellants are that the deceased was hale and healthy at
the time of his death and was doing business and earning a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month.
3. The 2nd respondent/insurance company had filed their counter
stating that the negligence was solely on the part of the driver of the Tata
Ace and not on the 1st respondent/ driver. They further contended that the
Tata Ace was driven by the deceased S.Kanniyappa who had lost control
over the vehicle on account of his rash and negligent driving and dashed
against the bus, therefore, he being the tortfeasor, he cannot seek
compensation from the respondents 1 and 2. They had also questioned the
right of the claimants to file the application since they are not the
dependents of the said S.Kanniyappa.
4. The Tribunal below held negligence on the part of the 1 st
respondent's bus and granted a total compensation of Rs.2,70,000/-. Since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.846 of 2022
the appellants/claimants were unable to show the proof for the income
earned by the deceased, a notional income of Rs.6,000/- was taken
considering his age and the dependency of the family members who are the
children aged 46, 39, 55 and 48 years old respectively and all of them are
only the daughters who have been married and living with their respective
families. A multiplier of ‘5’ was taken and 1/4th was deducted towards
personal expenses and the loss of dependency was fixed at a sum of
Rs.2,70,000/-. A sum of Rs.15,000/- was given under the head of loss of
estates and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Hence
negligence was held both on the driver of the 1st respondent's bus as well as
on the deceased and therefore 10% contributory negligence was mulcted on
the driver of the Tata Ace. Total a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded out of
which 10% was deducted towards negligence and a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-
had been awarded as compensation.
5. The claimant would submit that the notional income is very low
and the Tribunal below taking into account the fact that it was an accident
of the year 2015 and ought to have taken a higher national income. There is
no argument with reference to the negligence aspect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.846 of 2022
6. Heard the learned counsel.
7. The deceased is aged about 70 years at the time of the accident and
the eldest of the claimants is about 55 years old, all the four of them are
married and living with their respective families therefore, the issue of their
being dependent on the deceased does not arise. However, since there is no
proof of employment and also taking into account the age of the deceased,
the Tribunal has fixed his notional income at Rs.6,000/- and I see no reason
to interfere with the same. The appellants have not been able to show proof
that the deceased was in a possession of a valid driving license. Further
considering the age, the possibility of his not having renewed his driving
license is very strong and that could be the reason why the same has not
been produced by the claimants. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with
the well-considered judgment of the Tribunal below and hence the above
Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
08.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non-Speaking
shr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.846 of 2022
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court,
Ranipet, Vellore.
2.The Section Office,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.846 of 2022
P.T. ASHA, J,
shr
C.M.A. No.846 of 2022
08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
