Madras High Court

G.Jegathambal vs P.Papathy on 1 March, 2022

                                                           CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                               DATED: 01.03.2022
                                                   CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
                                              CMA.No.3102 of 2017
                                                     and
                                               CMA.No.69 of 2018
                                                     and
                                              CMP.No.1622 of 2018

                     1.G.Jegathambal
                     2.G.Priya Dharshini
                     3.G.Pavithra
                     4.A.Kanagarathinam
                     5.G.Arumugam
                                                ...Appellants in CMA No.3102 of 2017

                     The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
                     No.45, Moore Street,
                     Chennai – 600 001.
                                               ...Appellant in CMA No.69 of 2018

                                                      v.
                     1.P.Papathy

                     2.The Manager,
                       New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
                       No.45, Moore Street,
                       Chennai – 600 001.
                       Now at Door No.232, NSC Bose Road,
                       Bombay Mutual Building,
                       Chennai - 1
                                                     ..Respondents in CMA No.3102 of 2017)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018

1.G.Jegathambal

2.G.Priya Dharshini

3.G.Pavithran

4.A.Kanagarathinam

5.G.Arumugam

6.P.Pappathy ...Respondents in CMA No.69 of 2018)

Prayer in CMA No.3102 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2016 in MCOP No.421 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / III Jugde, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

Prayer in CMA No.69 of 2018: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in MCOP No.421 of 2014 dated 04.07.2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / III Jugde, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Appellants : Ms.Ramya V Rao, (in CMA No.3102 of 2017) Mr.J.Chandran , (in CMA No.69 of 2018) For Respondents : Mr.J.Chandran, (in CMA No.3102 of 2017) Ms.Ramya V Rao, (in CMA No.69 of 2018)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT

The petitioner in MCOP No.421 of 2014 which was on the file of

the III Court of Small Causes, Chennai and also the 2nd respondent in the

very same claim petition have filed two separate appeals questioning the

judgment passed. The claimants have filed CMA No.3102 of 2017 and the

2nd respondent / Insurance Company has filed CMA No.69 of 2018.

2.The claimants and the insurance company are aggrieved by the

quantum of compensation granted.

3.The petition in MCOP No.421 of 2014 had been filed taking

advantage of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 3 of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules 1989. Naturally, any petition

filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would indicate

that negligence cannot be the basis for claim and a schedule is provided in

Schedule II of the Act, in which the quantum of compensation to be granted

under the various heads, has been provided and the award should be on that

particular basis. Proof of negligence is not a criteria.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018

4. The necessity to file the claim petition, arose owing to the fact

that when one Gopalakrishnan was driving a mini lorry bearing Registration

No.TN-20-CV-7725 from Chengalpet to Tambaram, on 15.11.2013 at

around 9.30 p.m, at that particular time point of time, another lorry bearing

Registration No.TN-36-AA- 4713 which was proceeding in front of the

lorry being driven by Gopalakrishnan without any signal stopped and owing

to that fact, Gopalakrishnan who was driving the mini lorry dashed on the

lorry and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It was claimed

that the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-36-AA-4713 was

responsible for the accident.

5.Owing to that particular fact, the legal representatives of

Gopalakrishnan filed a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988, as negligence was evident in the very nature of the accident

itself. The petition was taken on file and by judgment dated 04.07.2016, the

Tribunal proceeded to determine whether the accident had occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-37-

AA-4713 and also the compensation to be granted.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018

6.In the first place, the first issue which had been framed was also

not necessary, since there is no necessity to prove negligence in a petition

filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Accident Act, 1988.

Fortunately, the Tribunal did find negligence on the part of the said lorry.

Let me leave it at that.

7.Thereafter, the Tribunal determined the compensation to be

granted and there again, the Tribunal misdirected itself owing to the fact that

they adopted a multiplier and then they determined the monthly income of

the deceased and determined the annual income of the deceased, the

percentage, which he would have contributed to the family. The Tribunal

need not have entered into these calculations at all. By judgment dated

04.07.2016, the Tribunal had granted a total compensation of Rs.5,42,000/-.

The compensation breakup was as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018

Heads Amounts Pecuniary loss (Rs.40,000 + Rs.12,000 = Rs.5,07,000/- Rs.52,000/- less deduction Rs.13,000 = Rs.39,000 x 13 = Rs.5,07,000/-) Funeral expense Rs.25,000/-

                           Transport expenses                                        Rs.10,000/-
                                                 Total                             Rs.5,42,000/-

8.The Tribunal had determined a sum of Rs.40,000/- as the

annual income. Let me accept that. If the multiplier of 13 is adopted the

total sum comes to Rs.5,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 13). If 1/4th amount is

deducted, that amount to Rs.1,30,000/-. The balance amount was the loss of

dependency and that is Rs.3,90,000/-.

9.The Tribunal had granted Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses

and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses.

10.These amounts should have been determined by way of the

Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a look into that particular

schedule reveals that towards funeral expenses a sum of Rs.2,000/- alone

can be granted and further, towards loss to consortium a sum of Rs.5,000/-

and towards loss of estate a sum of Rs.2,500/- alone can be granted. The

compensation calculated comes to Rs.3,99,500/- and which can be rounded

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3102 of 2017 & CMA.No.69 of 2018

it of to Rs.4,00,000/-. The reduced compensation breakup is as follows:

                                                Heads                                Amounts
                           Pecuniary loss                                           Rs.3,90,000/-
                           Funeral expense                                              Rs.2,000/-
                           Loss to consortium                                           Rs.5,000/-
                           Loss of estate                                               Rs.2,500/-
                                                 Total                              Rs.3,99,500/-

11.CMA.No.69 of 2018 is partly allowed reducing the

compensation which had been determined as Rs.5,42,000/- to Rs.3,99,500/-

(rounded it of to Rs.4,00,000/-). The Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the aforesaid claim amount with interest of 7.5% from the date of

filing of the petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any amount had been

deposited pursuant to directions of this Court, the same may be adjusted.

The compensation amount can be apportioned in the following manner,

namely Rs.1,50,000/- to the 1st petitioner, and Rs.1,00,000 each to the 2nd

and 3rd petitioners and Rs.50,000/- for the 4th and 5th petitioners. The accrued

interest may also be accordingly apportioned. On such deposit, the

appellants in CMA.No.3102 of 2017 are permitted to withdraw the same.