Madras High Court
Natarajan vs M.Vinothkumar on 11 April, 2023
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.3887 of 2021
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020
1.Natarajan
2.Kalaiselvi ... Appellants
Vs.
1.M.Vinothkumar
2.National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claims Office,
No.46, Moore Street,
Chennai 600 001.
... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2019 in
M.C.O.P.No.2030 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II
Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondents : No appearance for R1
Mr.S.Arunkumar for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claims Office,
No.46, Moore Street,
Chennai 600 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Natarajan
2.Kalaiselvi
3.M.Vinothkumar
... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2019 in
M.C.O.P.No.2030 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II
Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Nalliyappan for R1 & R2
No appearance for R3
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 is filed by the
Claimants and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.635 of 2021 is filed
by the Insurance Company, challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.2030 of 2016
dated 05.12.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as Claimants and
Insurance Company in this Judgment.
3. The Claimants have filed the Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation and the Insurance Company has filed the Appeal questioning the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
4. The succinct facts of the case are as follows:
On 21.12.2015 at about 13.00 hrs while the deceased was riding her two
wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN 36 M 5425, near Erangattur LBP Vaikkal
Bridge, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 40 E 6795, came in the opposite
direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of the
deceased who sustained grievous injury and died on the way to hospital. The
claimants, the parents of the deceased, therefore filed a Claim Petition claiming a
sum of Rs.41,00,000/- towards compensation.
5. According to the Claimants, the deceased was aged about 18 years at the
time of the occurrence and was working as a Manager in S.S.Digital Studio,
Erangattur, Bhavanisagar and drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
6. The first respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle filed
a detailed counter denying all the averments made in the Claim Petition apart from
specifically denying his negligence.
7. The second respondent Insurance Company filed a counter generally
denying all the averments made in the Claim Petition. The Insurance Company
also denied that the deceased was working as a Manager and earning Rs.15,000/-
per month. The second respondent Insurance Company stated that the claim was
exorbitant and unjustified.
8. Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the first Claimant examined
himself as P.W.1 and one eyewitness was examined as P.W.2. Exhibits P1 to P10
were marked in support of the Claim Petition. On the side of the respondents,
R.W.1 & R.W.2 were examined and Exhibits R1 to R14 were marked.
9. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on going through the pleadings and
the evidence on record, returned the finding of negligence against the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
respondent and further directed the second respondent Insurance Company to pay
and recover from the first respondent.
10. On the issue of quantum, the Tribunal assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded Rs.16,20,000/- towards loss of
dependency. In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.18,50,000/- as compensation along
with the interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, the claimants as well as the Insurance Company have
filed the above Appeals.
11. The learned counsel for the Claimants submitted that the assessment of
income at Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal is very low and the award under various
heads was also unsustainable. The learned counsel therefore submitted that this
was a fit case for enhancement of compensation.
12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand
submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month as there was absolutely no evidence to support
the same. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
Rs.1,00,000/- each to the claimants towards loss of love and affection and filial
consortium. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal erred in
awarding Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, when the fact remains that the
claimants' daughter died on the way to hospital. The learned counsel therefore
submitted that the award of the Tribunal deserved to be modified.
13. Heard the learned counsels for the Claimants and the Insurance Company
and perused the materials available on record.
14. The only point to be decided in these Appeals is what would be the just
and fair compensation? I am in agreement with the contention of the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company that no case is made out by the Claimants for
enhancing the compensation as absolutely, no evidence was filed to prove the
income and the employment of the deceased. Though the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company submitted that in the absence of evidence, the assessment of
income at Rs.10,000/- was on the higher side and the same has to be modified, I
am of the considered view that the reasons given by the Tribunal for assessing the
income is fair and reasonable and does not call for interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
15. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the
addition of 50% towards future prospects is against the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others. The learned counsel submitted that the addition towards future
prospects can be only 40%. The said contention of the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company is justified and therefore, the loss of dependency shall be
modified by taking 40% towards future prospects instead of 50%.
16. As far as the award towards loss of love and affection and filial
consortium is concerned, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that the Claimants would be entitled to Rs.80,000/- only
towards filial consortium and that the claimants would not be entitled to any
amount towards loss of love and affection. The claim towards medical expenses is
also set aside as it is clear that the deceased died on the way to the hospital. It is
seen that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate.
Therefore, the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is
adjusted towards loss of estate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
17. In the light of the above discussions, the compensation awarded by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2030 of 2016 dated 05.12.2019,
is modified as under:
S.No. Heads Award of the Award of this
Tribunal Court
1 Loss of Rs.16,20,000/- Rs.15,12,000/-
Dependency
2 Loss of Love Rs.1,00,000/- Nil
and Affection
3 Filial Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.80,000/-
Consortium
4 Medical Rs.15,000/- Nil
Expenses
5 Loss of Nil Rs.15,000/-
Estate
6 Funeral Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Expenses
Total Rs.18,50,000/- Rs.16,22,000/-
18. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that
Rs.15,00,000/- has already been deposited towards compensation awarded by the
Tribunal. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance
amount along with the interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till
the date of realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the Claimants shall be entitled to
withdraw the same in the same proportion as directed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal. The appellant Insurance Company is permitted to pay and
recover from the first respondent / third respondent herein as directed by the
Tribunal.
19. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Claimants in C.M.A.No.609 of
2020 is dismissed and the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company in
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021 is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/non speaking order
gsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021
N.MALA,J.
gsk
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(II Small Causes Court), Chennai.
C.M.A.No.609 of 2020 and
C.M.A.No.635 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.3887 of 2021
11.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
