Madras High Court

Chellammal vs E.Dinesh on 10 August, 2023

                                                                        C.M.A.No.1742 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 10.08.2023

                                                   CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                             C.M.A.No.1742 of 2023

                  1.Chellammal
                  2.Sakthivel
                  3.Devananthan                                    ...Appellants/Petitioners

                                                      Vs.

                  1.E.Dinesh
                  2.Balaji Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
                    Old No.276 & 277, New No.497 & 498,
                    Insan Kattina Building, V Floor,
                    Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam,
                    Chennai – 600 106.                        ...Respondents/Respondents


                  Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
                  Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2022 and
                  made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2282 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident
                  Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.




                  _____
                  1/10



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           C.M.A.No.1742 of 2023

                                        For Appellants    : Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja
                                        For Respondents : R1-Exparte
                                                          Mr.G.Vasudevan for R2

                                                    JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants

challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the

award dated 28.10.2022 made in MACT OP.No.2282 of 2020 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes,

Chennai.

2. The appellants filed MACT.OP.No.2282 of 2020 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes,

Chennai claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of

one Ramu, who died in the road accident that took place on 12.11.2019.

3. According to the appellants, on 12.11.2019 at about 4.00 p.m.,

while the deceased Ramu was walking in the extreme left side of mud road

near Ravuthar Nallar Lake, Ezhil Nagar, an Ashok Leyland Dost vehicle

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1742 of 2023

bearing Regn.No.TN04-AP-7737 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit

the deceased from behind. In the accident, the said deceased sustained

grievous injuries all over the body and died on the way to the Hospital. The

deceased was aged 59 years at the time of the accident and was an

Agricultural Coolie earning Rs.35,000/- per month. Hence, the appellants

filed a claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents.

4.The 1st respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter statement

denying all the averments made by the appellants in the claim petition and

stated that the deceased crossed the road without noticing the vehicles in the

carriage way, without adopting the road regulations, invited the accident; that

the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased; that the driver

of the first respondent's vehicle did not have a valid driving license and was

not insured with them at the time of the accident and stated that in any event,

the total compensation claimed by the appellants are highly excessive and

prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1742 of 2023

6. Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined two witnesses as P.W.1

and P.W.2 and marked eleven documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11.

The second respondent examined S.Sumesh, Legal Officer of the second

respondent's company as R.W.1 and marked five documents as Exs.R.1 to

R.5.

7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence

held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver

of the offending vehicle and directed the second respondent to pay a sum of

Rs.7,83,600/- as compensation to the appellants.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the

present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the award of

compensation is meagre, since the Tribunal fixed the notional income at

Rs. 8,000/- per month; that the appellants have established that the deceased

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1742 of 2023

was working as an Agricultural Coolie and earning substantially and hence,

prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants filed a verified petition dated

05.06.2022 that Court notice to the first respondent may be dispensed with

since he remained exparte before the Tribunal. Hence, notice to the first

respondent is dispensed with.

11. The learned counsel for the second respondent, per contra,

submitted that the Tribunal had awarded just and reasonable compensation;

that the appellants had not produced any document to prove the avocation or

the income of the deceased; that the deceased was aged nearly 60 years at the

time of the accident; that considering all the above factors, the Tribunal

rightly fixed notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month and hence, submitted

that there is no reason to interfere with the award and prayed for the dismissal of

the appeal.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1742 of 2023

12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as

the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

13. The only question in the instant appeal is whether the award of

compensation is just and reasonable?

14. On perusal of the records, this Court finds that the appellants have

established that the deceased was working as an Agricultural Coolie through

the evidence of P.W.1/son of the deceased. However, no document has been

produced to prove the income of the deceased. This Court is of the view that

the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. Considering the age,

avocation of the deceased and the year of the accident, this Court is of the

view that it would be just and reasonable to fix Rs.14,000/- per month as

notional income for the deceased. The deceased was aged 59 years at the time

of the accident hence, he is entitled to enhancement of 10% towards future

prospects and the multiplier applicable is 9. Since there are three dependents,

1/3rd of his income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the

deceased. Thus, the compensation awarded under the head Loss of Income/

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1742 of 2023

Dependency is modified as follows:-

Rs. 14,000 + 1400 (10% X 14000) X 12 X 9 X 2/3 = 11,08,800/-

15. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is

just and reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. Thus, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.7,83,600/- to

Rs.12,58,800/-, break-up as follows :-

                         Sl. Description                Amount        Amount       Award
                         No                            awarded by   awarded by confirmed
                                                        Tribunal     this Court or enhanced
                                                          (Rs)          (Rs)     or granted
                         1.       Loss of Income       6,33,600/-   11,08,800/-    Enhanced
                                  Dependency
                         2.       Loss of Estate        15,000/-     15,000/-      Confirmed
                         3.       Loss of Consortium   1,20,000/-   1,20,000/-     Confirmed
                                  (Rs.40,000X3)


                         4.       Funeral Expenses      15,000/-     15,000/-      Confirmed
                                         Total         7,83,600/-   12,58,800/-    Enhanced
                                                                                       by
                                                                                  Rs.4,75,200/-




                  _____




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           C.M.A.No.1742 of 2023

16. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at

Rs.7,83,600/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.12,58,800/- together with interest at

the rate of 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period if any) from the date

of petition till the date of deposit. The second respondent /Insurance

Company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this

Court along with interest and costs less the amount already deposited, if any,

within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

Judgment. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their

share of the award amount along with proportionate interest and costs, less

the amount if any, already withdrawn, on the basis of apportionment fixed by

the Tribunal. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if