Madras High Court
Mariammal vs S.Sakthivel on 29 March, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CMA No. 1735 of 2017
1. Mariammal
2. Rathinam
3. Geetha ... Petitioners /Appellants
Vs
1. S.Sakthivel
2. The United Insurance Company Limited.,
(Namakkal) TPHUB
Having Office at No. 104-A
Peramanoor Main Road
Salem – 7. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.
Act, 1988 against the award made in Judgment and Decree dated
14.12.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No. 1965 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special District Court, Salem.
***
For Appellants : Mr. SP. Yuaraj
For 2nd Respondent : M/s. I.Malar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
The parents and elder sister of Yuvaraja, who unfortunately died in a
motor accident on 21.10.2014 at around 3.45 p.m., were the claimants in
M.C.O.P.No. 1965 of 2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Additional and Special District Court, Salem.
2. They have filed the Appeal aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation granted for the death of Yuvaraja. On 21.10.2014 at around
3.45 p.m., Yuvaraja was riding as a pillion rider in motorcycle which was
driven by his friend Kamalesan in Hosur – Royakottai Main Road. When
they reached the Tomato Mandi and the tea shop there, a lorry bearing
Registration No. KA-01-B-4916 owned by the first respondent and
insured with the second respondent, was said to have been driven in a rash
and negligent manner and had entered the Main Road on the wrong side of
the road. Due to that particular, entry of the lorry, the driver of the
motorcycle Kamalesan applied sudden brakes, but the lorry hit against the
motorcycle. Yuvaraja sustained grievous injuries in the head and all over
the body and died on the spot. Claiming that the accident occurred only
due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, his parents and sister
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had filed M.C.O.P.No. 1965 of 2014 before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional District Court, Salem.
3. By Judgment dated 14.12.2016, the Tribunal, on consideration of
the evidence presented before it granted a total compensation of
Rs.13,22,500/-. Challenging the said grant of compensation, the present
Appeal has been filed.
4. Heard the learned counsels and also perused the materials
available on record.
5. During the course of trial, on the side of the claimants, three
witnesses had been examined. PW-2, Kamalesan was the driver of the
motorcycle and PW-3, was examined. He was an Officer in M/s. LUK
India Private Ltd., where Yuvaraja was working. He tendered evidence
about the income earned by Yuvaraja and his future prospectus in the
company if he had continued to work in the company.
6. With respect to the first issue of negligence, the Tribunal
determined that since the lorry had entered on the wrong side and though
the motorcycle driver PW-2 Kamalesan had applied sudden brake, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
lorry had still dashed against the motorcycle causing the accident and
therefore, the Tribunal held that it was owing to the negligence on the part
of the driver of the lorry that the accident took place. I would affirm that
particular finding.
7. With respect to the grant of compensation, the Tribunal
considered the documents produced with respect to the income of the
Yuvaraja particularly Exs. P-19 to P-22 but stated that those documents do
not give a correct picture of the actual earning of Yuvaraja. The Tribunal
found fault that the salary register or the salary receipt or pay slips had not
been produced and observed that if those documents had been produced,
the true picture of the actual salary earned by Yuvaraja could be
determined.
8. It must also be stated that Yuvaraja was a student of B.E.
Mechanical 1st year in Vinayaga Mission College. The Tribunal however
in the absence of any cogent materials to substantiate the salary had
determined the monthly income at Rs.7,500/-. The Tribunal then granted
50% towards future prospectus and deducted 50% towards personal
expenses. The deceased Yuvaraja was aged about 27 years at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
his death and therefore, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of '17' and
proceeded to determine the loss of dependency to the claimants in view of
this death. The Tribunal also granted compensation under various other
heads.
9. This grant of compensation is seriously assailed by the learned
counsel for the appellants who pointed out the documents to the extent
available had been produced as evidence to indicate that Yuvaraja was
actually working in M/s. LUK India Pvt. Ltd., and that he was employed
in middle management cadre in the said private company and that to
enhance his future prospectus, he had also joined B.E. Mechanical and
was in the 1st year in the said course. Learned counsel stated that if the
evidence are considered in their proper perspective then the determination
of the monthly income at Rs.7,500/- was much on the lower side and was
to the disadvantage of the claimants. The learned counsel stated that this
Court should revisit the grant of compensation.
10. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance
Company however stated that the Tribunal had observed that necessary
materials, particularly, pay slips or salary register had not been produced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to actually determine the income of Yuvaraja in LUK India Pvt., Ltd. As a
matter of fact, the learned counsel stated that Exs. P-19 to P-21 did not
even contain the seal of the official who had signed those documents and
therefore also raised a suspicion over the genuinity of the said documents.
The learned counsel stated that grant of 50% towards future prospectus
was not in accordance with the established principles and also stated that
there should be a revisitation by this Court about the compensation that
had been granted to the claimants / legal heirs of Yuvaraja. It was also
pointed out that the third claimant was a elder married sister and
therefore, she cannot be classified as dependent of Yuvaraja.
11. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced.
12. PW-2 Kamalesan had spoken that he was the driver of the
motorcycle in which the deceased Yuvaraja was the pillion rider at the
time of the accident. He produced Ex.X-1 his identitiy card with LUK
India Private Ltd., This establishes the fact that a company called LUK
India Private Ltd., is actually in existenace and is functioning. To that
extent when Es.X-1 is correlated with Exs. P-19 to P-22, a reasonable
presumption can be drawn that the said documents, namely, Exs.P-19 to P-
22 cannot be brushed aside as not being genuine.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent pointed out the First
Information Report wherein PW-2 did not state that Yuvaraja, was his co-
employee but rather stated that Yuvaraja was a known person. I would
rather give the benefit to PW-2 Kamalesan since as a driver of the vehicle,
having see his own friend die in front of him, his mental capacity would
not have been in a clear state and at that particular point of time, quite
apart from being a co-employee, he would have been more concerned that
a friend had lost his life and that is what he stated before the police. He
could not, at that particular point of time imagined that it was necessary to
give a distinct place of work and all such details in his complaint before
the police. The word 'friend' comprises everything. I hold that the
evidence of PW-2 can be considered to affirm that Yuvaraja was an
employee of LUK India Private Ltd. The fact that he had also joined B.E.
Mechanical Engineering course shows his enterprise to further his future
prospectus.
14. In view of these factors, I would determine the monthly income
at Rs.15,000/- per month. To this I would add 40% as future prospectus.
This would mean that the monthly income would be Rs.21,000/-
(Rs.15,000 + Rs.6,000/-).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. From this sum 50% has to be deducted towards personal
expenses which would mean (Rs.21,000 – Rs.10,500) = Rs.10,500/- which
would be the monthly income which Yuvaraja could have contributed to
the claimants more particularly to his parents. The per annum contribution
towards the family would therefore be (Rs.10,500 x 12) = 1,26,000/-.
Since the deceased was aged about 27 years multiplier of '17' can be
adopted. This would also mean, the total loss of income would be
(Rs.1,26,000 x 17) = Rs.21,42,000/-.
16. The Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards
transport expenses and I would reduce that to Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal
had granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses, I would grant
Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, The Tribunal had granted a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs.40,000/-
each can be granted under this head for the mother, father and the sister
can be granted Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards damages to clothes and I would retain it. I would also grant
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The total compensation is at
Rs.22,92,000/- as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) Loss of income : Rs.21,42,000/-
(ii) Loss of Love and
affection
(Rs.40000 x 2 +Rs.20000) : Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iii) towards transportation : Rs. 15,000/-
(iv) towards funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000/-
(v) towards damages to clothes:Rs. 5,000/-
(vi) towards loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/-
-----------------
Rs.22,92,000/-
------------------
17. The additional compensation granted is at Rs.9,69,500/-. In
fine, the Appeal is allowed. No costs. The award is modified. The
compensation award is enhanced to Rs.22,92,000/-.
18. The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced
amount less the amount already deposited, if any, with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of
deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. On such deposit, the first petitioner/mother will be entitled for a
sum of Rs.12/- lakhs, the second petitioner/father will be entitled to Rs.8/-
lakhs. The third petitioner will be entitled to the balance amount. They are
permitted to withdraw the award amount, after adjusting the amount, if
any, already withdrawn. No order as to costs.
vsg 29.03.2022
Index:Yes / No
Speaking / Non-Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
vsg
To
1.Additional Special District Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
CMA No. 1735 of 2017
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
