Madras High Court

Revathi vs Ravikumar on 29 June, 2022

                                                                           C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 29.06.2022

                                                        CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
                                                   and
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                                 C.M.A.No.1265 of 2021

                  Revathi                                                       .. Appellant
                                                          Vs.
                  1.Ravikumar

                  2.Chandra Sekara Bharathi

                  3.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited,
                    Madurai.                                                   .. Respondents
                  Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
                  Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019, made
                  in M.C.O.P. No.260 of 2018, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident
                  Claims Tribunal) Kangeyam, Tiruppur District.


                                        For Appellant     : Mr.M.Lokesh

                                        For R3            : Ms.C.Harini
                                                            for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates



                  _____
                  1/15



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

                                                     JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.]

This appeal has been filed against the award of the Tribunal dated

27.09.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.260 of 2018, on the file of the Sub Court,

(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Kangeyam, Tiruppur District.

2.The appellant-claimant filed M.C.O.P. No.260 of 2018, on the file of

the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Kangeyam, Tiruppur

District, claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (claim amount amended vide order

of this Court dated 04.03.2020 made in C.M.P.No.27384 of 2019 in

C.M.A.SR.154846 of 2019) as compensation for the death of one Arun, who

died in the accident that took place on 13.07.2014.

3.According to the appellant, on the date of accident, at about

8.30 p.m., when the deceased Arun was riding his Motorcycle bearing

Registration No.KL-39-0839 from East to West of Kangeyam to Palayakottai

road, on the left hand side of the road with minimum speed and utmost care

and cautiousness. Near Chettiyar Maligai Shop, the 1st respondent/driver of

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-67-F-4458, owned by the 2nd

respondent who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner in front

of the Motorcycle, abruptly stopped the vehicle without any signal, as a result

of which the deceased Arun who was coming behind the Lorry dashed on the

backside of the Lorry. In the accident, the said Arun sustained grievous injury

and died on the spot. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent

driving of Lorry by the 1st respondent and hence, the appellant filed claim

petition claiming compensation against the respondents as driver, owner and

insurer of the Lorry respectively.

4.The respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5.The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter statement and

denied all the averments made by the appellant in the claim petition.

According to the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, the accident occurred

when the deceased Arun, who was riding the Motorcycle in a zigzag manner,

without driving license, Insurance and without wearing helmet at an

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

uncontrollable speed, lost balance and hit behind the Lorry driven by the 1st

respondent. The accident has occurred only due to the negligent riding of

Motorcycle by the deceased Arun. Hence, the 3rd respondent is not liable to

pay compensation to the appellant. The claim petition is bad for non-joinder

of owner and insurer of the Motorcycle. The 1st respondent, driver of the

Lorry has not informed the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company about the

accident and did not submit the vehicle records for verification. Without

receiving the copy of the policy, Registration Certificate, Driving License and

permit particulars from the appellant or owner of the Lorry, the 3rd

respondent-Insurance Company is unable to admit whether the policy and

Registration Certification was in force at the time of alleged accident. At the

time of accident, the 1st respondent did not possess valid driving license to

ply the vehicle. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the appellant

is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6.Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1, one

R.Natrayan, eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 11

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. On the side of the 3rd respondent-

Insurance Company, one Vaitheeswaran, their Official was examined as

R.W.1, 1st respondent/driver of the Lorry was examined as R.W.2 and 3

documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3.

7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that both the deceased/rider of the Motorcycle as well as the 1 st

respondent/driver of the Lorry are equally responsible for the accident, fixed

50% negligence on both of them and directed the respondents to jointly and

severally pay a sum of Rs.3,08,000/- as compensation to the appellant.

8.Questioning the 50% negligence fixed on the deceased as well as not

being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the award dated

27.09.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.260 of 2018, the appellant has come out

with the present appeal.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st

respondent/driver of the Lorry, who suddenly stopped the Lorry without any

signal. The appellant examined P.W.2, an independent eye-witness who

deposed that the accident occurred only when the 1st respondent/driver of the

Lorry suddenly stopped the Lorry. The 3rd respondent examined only the

driver of the Lorry and did not examine any independent witness. The

appellant marked Ex.P1 – FIR which was registered against the 1 st

respondent/driver of the Lorry. The Tribunal, without properly appreciating

the evidence of P.W.2 and contents of FIR, erroneously fixed 50%

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, without fixing entire

negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry. At the time of accident, the

deceased Arun was doing Real Estate Business and was earning a sum of

Rs.15,000/- per month. Without considering the cost inflation index, cost of

living and year of accident, the Tribunal fixed only a meagre sum of

Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. Considering the

fact that the appellant is a widow lady who is entirely dependent on the

deceased, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

expenses of the deceased, instead of deducting 50%. The amounts awarded

by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are

meagre. The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of estate and

loss of filial consortium and prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

10.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-

Insurance Company submitted that the deceased while riding the Motorcycle

in a zig-zag manner without wearing helmet, lost control and dashed on the

backside of the Lorry. The accident occurred only due to the negligence on

the part of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have fixed entire negligence

on the deceased. The appellant failed to prove the avocation and income of

the deceased. In the absence of any material evidence, the notional income

fixed by the Tribunal is not meagre. The deceased died as a bachelor. Hence,

the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses. The

appellant has not made any case for enhancement of the compensation and

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

11.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the 3rd

respondent-Insurance Company and perused the materials available on

record.

12.It is the admitted case of both the appellant and 3 rd respondent-

Insurance Company that when the deceased dashed on the back side of the

Lorry, the accident occurred. The manner of the accident alleged by the

appellant and 3rd respondent is different. According to the appellant, the

driver of the Lorry was driving the Lorry at high speed and suddenly stopped

the Lorry without giving any signal. Due to negligent stopping of the Lorry

by driver, the deceased dashed on the backside of the Lorry and sustained

fatal injury. On the other hand, in the counter statement, it is the case of the

3rd respondent-Insurance Company that the deceased rode the Motorcycle in a

zig-zag manner without wearing helmet, without possessing driving license

and dashed on the Lorry. The appellant examined P.W.2 – independent eye-

witness who deposed as claimed by the appellant. The 3rd respondent

examined the driver of the Lorry as R.W.2. The driver of the Lorry deposed

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

contrary to the stand taken by the 3rd respondent in the counter statement and

deposed that he parked the Lorry with parking signal on the edge of the road

and got down from the Lorry to enquire and by that time, the deceased dashed

on the backside of the Lorry. Whereas in the counter statement, the 3 rd

respondent has taken the stand that the deceased dashed on the backside of

the moving Lorry. The Tribunal considering this contradiction and the fact

that the driver of the Lorry is an interested witness, did not accept the

evidence of driver and accepted the evidence of P.W.2/independent eye-

witness and FIR. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.2 and FIR,

held that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the Lorry

driver. Having held so, the Tribunal, considering the fact that the accident

occurred when the deceased dashed on the backside of the Lorry, held that the

deceased also contributed to the accident and fixed 50% negligence on the

part of the deceased. 50% negligence fixed on the deceased is on higher side.

The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company did not prove by examining

independent witness that Lorry was parked on the edge of the road with

parking signal. The Tribunal held that accident occurred due to the negligence

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

of driver of the Lorry. The Lorry is a heavy vehicle. Having held that the

accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry,

the Tribunal fixed 50% contributory negligence on the deceased, which is on

higher side. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we fix

the negligence on the part of the deceased as 25% and direct the 3rd

respondent-Insurance Company to pay 75% of the compensation awarded, to

the appellant.

13.As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the

contention of the appellant that at the time of accident, the deceased Arun was

aged 31 years, doing Real Estate Business and was earning a sum of

Rs.15,000/- per month. The appellant did not file any document to prove the

avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any materials with

regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- per

month as notional income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2014.

The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. Considering the year of

accident and nature of work done by the deceased, the notional income of the

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

deceased is fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month. Though the appellant claimed that

the age of the deceased was 31 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal

rightly considering the driving license of the deceased which was marked as

Ex.P9, fixed the age of the deceased as 33 years and applied the correct

multiplier '16'. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident. The

Tribunal rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased.

The Tribunal failed to grant any enhancement towards future prospects of the

deceased. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017

(2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others], the appellant is entitled to 40% enhancement towards future

prospects. Hence, fixing Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income of the

deceased, granting 40% enhancement towards future prospects, applying the

multiplier '16' and deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased,

the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified

to Rs.10,75,200/- {Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/- (40% of Rs.8,000/-)] x 12 x 16 x

50%}. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of

love and affection to the appellant, which is meagre. As per the judgment of

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) (referred to

above), the appellant/mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/-

towards loss of love and affection. Hence, the amount granted by the Tribunal

towards loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal

has not awarded any amount for loss of estate and transport expenses. Hence,

a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/-

towards transportation expenses. The Tribunal has excessively awarded a sum

of Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and hence, the same is reduced to

Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as

follows:

S. No Description Amount awarded Amount Award by Tribunal awarded by this confirmed or (Rs) Court (Rs) enhanced or granted

1. Loss of dependency 5,76,000/- 10,75,200/- Enhanced

2. Loss of love and 20,000/- 40,000/- Enhanced affection

3. Transportation - 10,000/- Granted

4. Funeral expenses 20,000/- 15,000/- Reduced

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

5. Loss of estate - 15,000/- Granted Total 6,16,000/- 11,55,200/-

                                  50% of compensation        3,08,000/-             - Enhanced by
                                  (In view of                                         Rs.5,58,400/-
                                  contributory
                                  negligence)
                                  75% of compensation                 -    8,66,400/-
                                  (In view of
                                  contributory
                                  negligence)

14.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount awarded

by the Tribunal at Rs.3,08,000/- is enhanced to Rs.8,66,400/- together with

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

deposit. The respondents are jointly and severally directed to deposit the

award amount, now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs,

within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.290 of 2018. On such deposit, the

appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, now determined by this

Court, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any,

already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The

learned counsel appearing for the appellant is directed to pay the Court fee on

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.1265 of 2021

the award amount as per the order of this Court dated 04.08.2020 made in

C.M.P.No.8044 of 2020 in C.M.A.SR.154846 of 2019. No costs.