Madras High Court
K.Venkatesan vs Vembayee on 17 October, 2022
C.M.A.No.2827 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.2827 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
K.Venkatesan .. Appellant
-Vs.-
Kuppusamy (died)
1. Vembayee
2. Kumar
3. Amsavalli
4. Minor Amsaya, rep by
her mother Vembayee
5. S.Srinivasan .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2004 in
M.C.O.P.No.1966 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (I Additional Sub Court), Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2827 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.R.Meenal
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Ms.Ramya V.Rao
For Respondent-4 : Minor Rep by R1
For Respondent-5 : Mr.Pradeep Jayaraman
JUDGMENT
The second respondent, who is the present owner of the motor cycle,
bearing Registration No.TN 31 C 7209 and upon whom the liability has
been fastened by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional
Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore) in M.C.O.P.No.1966 of 2007 is the appellant
herein, challenging the Award passed, in which, he has been jointly and
severally held liable to compensate the claimants. Since the vehicle continues
to be registered in the name of the first respondent, the Tribunal had held
that both of them are jointly liable to compensate the petitioners. It is
challenging this Award that the appellant / second respondent is before this
Court.
2. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2827 of 2014
materials available on record.
3. Admittedly, the vehicle continues to be registered in the name
of the first respondent and the insurance policy also continues to stand in the
name of the first respondent. However, since there has been a transfer of the
vehicle without intimating the Regional Transport Office or the Insurance
Company, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable and therefore, they
have not been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The Tribunal has
awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.3,44,000/-. The Tribunal has
adopted a notional income of Rs.3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards
personal expenses, had taken a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as the income
and taking into account the age of the deceased had awarded a sum of
Rs.3,12,000/- under the head of loss of dependency and a further sum of
Rs.32,000/- under the head of loss of income for 16 months. It is
challenging the same that the second respondent had filed the above appeal.
4. The deceased has suffered a communited fracture of the right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2827 of 2014
tibia and fibula bone upper. He has undergone the treatment as an inpatient
for 40 days, i.e from 16.06.2007 to 25.07.2007, a surgery had been
performed by fixing a plate and screw. He had passed away and the
Tribunal had treated the death as a consequence of the accident, though
there was a nexus between the two. Therefore, the Award requires a
modification.
5. The monthly notional income of the deceased can be taken at
Rs.6,000/- The loss of income is calculated for 17 months, since the
deceased could not have done any work for nearly 1 ½ years.. Therefore, a
sum of Rs.1,02,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 17 months) under the head of loss of
income. The claimants are entitled to attender charges, since the deceased
has been an inpatient for over 40 days. Therefore, a sum of Rs.20,000/- can
be granted under this head. That apart, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the
transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and
Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment charges can be granted. Therefore,
the Award is reduced to a sum of Rs.1,52,000/-. Accordingly, the
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reworked as below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2827 of 2014
Heads Amount Awarded by this
Court
in Rs.
Loss of Income 1,02,000
Attender Charges 20,000
Medical expenses 10,000
Transportation Charges 10,000
Extra Nourishment Charges 10,000
Total 1,52.000
6. Since the vehicle continues to be registered in the name of the
5th respondent, it is only the 5th respondent who is liable to compensate the
claimants. The term owner is defined in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles
Act as follows:-
“Owner” means a person in whose name a motor
vehicle stands registered and where such person is a
minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a
motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase,
agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of
hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle
under that agreement;”
Therefore, considering the fact that the 5th respondent's name continues to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2827 of 2014
so shown in the register of the Registering Authority, the 5 th respondent is
liable to compensate the claimants.
7. When the claim petition was filed in the year 2007, the 5th
claimant was aged about 16 years and now, she should be aged about 31
years and is therefore, a major. Though no application has been taken out
to declare her as a major, this Court suo motu takes into account the age
given in the claim petition and also taking into account the efflux of time,
declares the 5th claimant as major and discharges the second claimant from
the guardianship.
8. This appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award of the
Tribunal is modified, reducing the compensation amount from Rs.3,44,000/-
to Rs.1,52,000/-. The said Award amount shall be payable by the 5th
respondent herein, since this Court is exonerating the appellant. The 5th
respondent is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.1,52,000/- to the
credit of M.C.O.P.No.1966 of 2007 together with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2827 of 2014
awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. On
such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the
amount now determined by this Court, along with proportionate interest and
costs, as apportioned by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount if any
already withdrawn. The award amount deposited by the appellant, if any,
shall be refunded. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
17.10.2022
srn
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(I Additional Sub Court), Cuddalore.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2827 of 2014
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.A.No.2827 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
17.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
