Madras High Court

Nagammal vs M/S.Royal Enfield on 17 August, 2023

                                                                                    CMA No. 897 / 2023

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 17.08.2023

                                                          CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                         Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 897 of 2023
                     1.Nagammal
                     2.Rama
                     3.I. Murugesan                                       ... Appellants
                                                            Versus
                     1.M/s.Royal Enfield,
                       No. 5284, Thiruvottriyur High Road,
                       Thiruvottriyur, Chennai – 600019.

                     2.United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
                       Motor third party Hub,
                       Silingi Building, 4th floor,
                       No. 134, Greams Road,
                       Chennai – 600006.                              ... Respondents

                     PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated
                     10.01.2023 in M.C.O.P. No. 4704 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
                     Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1 to deal with MCOP
                     Cases, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

                                  For Appellant        : Mr. R. Nalliyappan.

                                  For Respondents      : Mr. K. Swaminathan for R2.

                                                  Mr. T. Madhumitha for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/11
                                                                                     CMA No. 897 / 2023

                                                 M/s. King & Partridge for R1.
                                              JUDGMENT

The appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the award

passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 4704 of 2013 dated 10.01.2023.

2.The appellants had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal

stating that on 12.08.2013, when the deceased was walking along the

Muduchur to Tambaram road near Attai Company bus stop, a motorcycle

bearing Registration No. TN 03 K 6773 came from same direction in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result of which

the deceased sustained severe injuries and was admitted in the hospital.

However, he died on 19.10.2013.

3.The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.

4.The second respondent filed counter denying all the averments

made in the claim petition stating that since the first respondent is not the

real owner of the vehicle, the second respondent is not liable to pay the

compensation; that the rider of the motorcycle drove the vehicle under

the influence of alcohol and that the second respondent is not liable to

pay compensation for violation of policy condition; that the deceased had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 897 / 2023

crossed the road without noticing the upcoming vehicles and thus

resulted in accident; and that in any case, the compensation claimed was

excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5.The appellants examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 on

their side and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. On the side of the second

respondent no witness has been examined. However, Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2

has been marked.

6.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary

evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

riding by the rider of the motor cycle and directed the second respondent

to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,100/- as compensation to the appellants.

Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have preferred the instant

appeal.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for

the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 897 / 2023

met with an accident on 12.08.2013. He was initially admitted in the

Government Hospital at Chrompet and thereafter shifted to the private

hospital in which PW2 was working as doctor. He suffered multiple

injuries and underwent surgeries. He was treated as inpatient for nearly

38 days. He was discharged from the hospital on 24.09.2013.

Thereafter, when he was admitted in the hospital for second surgery for

removal of a external fixture, he died in the hospital on 19.10.2013. The

evidence, therefore, would show that there was a causal relationship

between the accident and the death. However, the Tribunal on the

wrongful appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the death had

no nexus with the accident. The learned counsel therefore submitted that

the finding of the Tribunal holding that the deceased did not die due to

the accident has to be set aside. As regards compensation, the learned

counsel submitted that the deceased was working as watchman and 62

years old at the time of accident and prayed for just and reasonable

compensation.

9.The learned counsel for the second respondent per contra

submitted that the evidence of PW2 doctor is categorical and suggests

that the death was not due to the injuries caused in the accident. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 897 / 2023

Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that no interference is called for

and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10.The learned counsel for the first respondent reiterated the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent and

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

11.The questions involved in the instant appeal are;

(i)Whether the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the

accident?

(ii)Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable?

12.The admitted facts are that the deceased met with an accident

on 12.08.2013. He was initially admitted at Government Hospital at

Chrompet and thereafter shifted to a private hospital. He had taken

treatment as an inpatient from 12.08.2013 to 24.09.2013. The discharge

summary reveals that the deceased has taken the following treatment;

“COURSE IN HOSPITAL:

Patient admitted with fracture both bones leg, with

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 897 / 2023

external fixation done. Ortho opinion obtained. Patient was posted for wound Debridement. All Investigations done. Surgery – wound debridement & medial hemisoleus flap done. Skin grafting done. Post op period uneventful. Antibiotics were given. Dressings changed periodically.” Ex.P.6, the discharge summary issued by the hospital shows that the

deceased died in the hospital on 19.10.2013 due to sudden cardiac

respiratory arrest. It is also seen that PW2 doctor had stated in his cross

examination that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest and not due to

the fracture suffered by him. The Tribunal based on the said evidence

held that there was no nexus between the accident and the death.

13.However, this Court is of the view that the said approach of the

Tribunal may not be correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. It

is well settled that in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, a

fact can be established by preponderance of probability. The death may

be due to the cardiac arrest but the cause for it has to be ascertained. The

nature of injuries suffered by the deceased and the manner and the period

of treatment taken by him would probabalise the causal relationship

between the accident and the death. The discharge summary and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 897 / 2023

medical records do not suggest that the deceased suffered from any other

ailment. In a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles act, one cannot

adopt a hyper-technical approach. The Courts have to bear in mind the

object and purpose of the beneficial legislation. Therefore, considering

the evidence of PW1, the discharge summary, the nature of injuries, the

treatment taken by the deceased and the proximity in time between the

accident and the death, this Court is of the view that the appellants have

established the nexus between the death and the injuries suffered in the

accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal holding that there was

no nexus is set aside.

14.As regards compensation, it is seen that as per the evidence of

PW1, the deceased was working as watchman and was aged 62 years at

the time of accident. Considering his age, avocation and the year of the

accident, this Court is of the view that it would be just and reasonable to

fix the notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month. The appellants are

entitled to 10% towards future prospects and the multiplier applicable is

7. The deceased was survived by his wife and two children. Therefore,

1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the loss of

income would be Rs.9,000 + Rs.900 (10% of Rs.9000) = Rs.9900 X 12 X https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 897 / 2023

7 X 2/3 = Rs.5,54,400/-. Since the multiplier method is adopted, the

award under the head loss of earnings is deleted. A sum of Rs.15,000/-

each is awarded under the head Loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Further, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- under the

head loss of love and affection. Further, the award under the head

attender charges is enhanced from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The

award under the other heads such as medical expenses, extra nourishment

and transportation are just and the same are confirmed. Thus, the award

of the Tribunal is modified as follows;

                        S.                Description           Amount      Amount      Award
                        No                                     awarded by awarded by confirmed or
                                                                Tribunal   this Court enhanced or
                                                                  (Rs)        (Rs)      granted
                         1.       Loss of income                        ---   5,54,400        Granted
                        2.        Transportation                     5,000        5,000      Confirmed
                         3.       Medical expenses                1,03,020     1,03,020      Confirmed
                         4.       Funeral expenses                      ---     15,000         Granted
                         5.       Loss of estate                        ---     15,000        Granted
                         6.       Loss of love and affection            ---    1,20,000       Granted
                         7.       Extra nourishment                 15,000      15,000       Confirmed
                         8.       Attender charges                  12,000      15,000       Enhanced
                         9.       Loss of earnings                  15,000          ---       Deleted
                                  Total                            1,50,020    8,42,420 Enhanced by
                                                                rounded off rounded off Rs.6,92,400/-
                                                                         to to 8,42,500

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                                                                                   CMA No. 897 / 2023


                                                               1,50,100

15. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at

Rs.1,50,100/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.8,42,500/- together with interest

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

petition till the date of deposit. The second respondent 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 a receipt of copy of this

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

award amount as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal along with

proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already

withdrawn. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary court fee if