Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Easwaran on 10 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :10.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.3633 of 2022
The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd,
15, a, PLA Kanagu Towers, II floor, 11th Cross Main Road,
Thillai Nagar, Trichy - 620 018. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Easwaran
2. Valarmathi
3. The Managing Partner,
M/s. Aghin Roadways,
MMC-4/2155/2, Mumdock road, Mahe,
Puducherry - 673 310. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, praying to set aside the Decree and Judgment dated 30th April
2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1734 of 2015, by the Hon'ble Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, I Additional District Court at Tiruppur.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
For Appellant : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari
For R1 and R2 : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.C.Bhuvanasundari, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the
materials available on record.
2.This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 30.04.2019
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional District Judge,
Tiruppur in M.C.O.P.No.1734 of 2015.
3.The claimants are the parents of the deceased-Vetrivel, who died in a
Motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 27.08.2015. According to the
claimants, the deceased, on a fateful day was riding a Car bearing Registration
No.TN 39 AY 6451 at the extreme left side of the road. At that time, a lorry
bearing Registration No.PY 03 8633 came in a rash and negligent manner
rammed the Car. In the accident, he suffered injuries and he was immediately
taken to Palladam Ponni Hospital and after providing first aid, he was referred to
KG Hospital, Coimbatore, where he succumbed to the injuries on 28.08.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
The claimants further stated that the deceased died at the age of 24 years and he
was doing Construction work at Singapore and earning Rs.75,000/- per month.
Since the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry,
the owner as well as the insurer are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2 Crores.
4.Before the Tribunal, owner of the lorry remained exparte and the claim
petition was contested by the appellant, disputing and denying the allegations
made in the claim petition.
5.According to the appellant/Insurance company, the deceased was
negligent and hence no compensation can be awarded to the claimants.
6.To establish the case, the claimants examined 2 witnesses and marked 15
documents. On the side of the appellant, neither oral nor documentary evidence
was produced.
7.P.W.2-sister of the deceased deposed that she also traveled along with the
deceased at the time of the accident and the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The First Information Report-Ex.P.1
shows that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the lorry. The
Tribunal on the basis of evidence of P.W.1 has rightly come to the conclusion that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the lorry. Therefore, we confirm the said finding.
8.With regard to quantum, the claimants have stated that the deceased died
at the age of 24 years. Ex.P.7 is the Driving License of the deceased, which
shows that the deceased was born on 15.09.1991. Therefore, the Tribunal has
fixed the age of the deceased as 24 years. P.W.1 stated that the deceased was
working full time and was also undergone training. It appears that though he had
completed under graduation in Engineering, pursuing highter studies at
Singapore. Ex.P.12 is the Work Permit, wherein the deceased was permitted to
work at Singapore till 26.12.2016. But the unfortunate accident taken place on
27.08.2015. The Tribunal based on the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.12 and P.15 –
Computerized Salary Slip of the deceased has fixed his income at Rs.23,218/-to
arrive at an amount under the head ‘loss of income’. The grievance of the
appellant is that the income fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
9.The learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs.C.Bhuvanasundari,
vehemently contended that the claimants failed to produce the appointment order
of the deceased and his bank statement, which will reveal the salary of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
deceased.
10.Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants, placing reliance on
the decision of this Court in the case of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Neela and another stated that even in the
absence of any supporting evidence, for a B.E., graduate, monthly income can be
fixed at Rs.20,000/-. But in the instant case, the claimants have produced salary
certificate and hence no interference is required.
11.Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsels and perused the
materials available on record.
12.In the matter on hand, it is not disputed that the claimants are the
parents of the deceased - Vetrivel and the deceased died at the age of 24 years.
Ex.P.6 – Provisional Certificate shows that the deceased has successfully
completed B.E., degree in Anna University at Chennai and thereafter he was
pursuing his studies at Singapore. Though the claimants have produced the Work
Permit and Salary Slip, but, failed to produce the Bank statement of the deceased
to show the exact salary received by him.
13.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also taking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
note of the decision of this Court stated supra, we are of the considered opinion
that the notional salary of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.22,000/-. As per the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the
claimants are entitled for 40% towards future prospectus. Thus the total monthly
income can be taken as Rs.30,000/-. Since the deceased died as a bachelor, 50%
is deducted towards his personal expenses. The contribution of the deceased to
the family is assessed as Rs.32,40,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 12 – 50%) x 18 . In
addition, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.80,000/- under the head ‘parental
consortium’, Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head ‘funeral expenses’ and
Rs.5,000/- under the head 'Transportation'. Apart from this a sum of Rs.15,000/-
is awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’. The amount awarded by the Tribunal
under the head ‘medical expenses’ is hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S.No Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award
by Tribunal by this Court (Rs) confirmed or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
(Rs) enhanced or
granted
1. Loss of income 35,10,648/- 32,40,000/- reduced
2. Medical bills 71,976/- 71,976/- confirmed
3. Loss of consortium 80,000/- 80,000/- Confirmed
4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
5. Transportation 5,000/- 5,000/- confirmed
6. Loss of estate --- 15,000/- Granted
Total 36,82,624/- 34,26,976/- Reduced by
rounded off to Rs.2,55,624/-
Rs.34,27,000/-
14.In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.36,82,624/- is reduced to
Rs.34,27,000/-. Out of the award, the 1st claimant is entitled to Rs.14,27,000/- and
the 2nd claimant is granted Rs.20,00,000/-. The amount carries interest at the rate
of 7.5% p.a., from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization and costs.
The appellant/Insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount now
determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit is
being made, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants are permitted to withdraw their
respective share of the award amount, now determined by this Court, along with
proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn if any.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
10.03.2022
Jer
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.
2.V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Jer
C.M.A.No.494 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.3633 of 2022
10.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
