Madras High Court
Chandrasekaran @ Chandrasekar vs G. Karthick on 24 August, 2023
CMA No. 1910 / 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1910 of 2023
1.Chandrasekaran @ Chandrasekar
2.C. Masilamani
3.V. Kala
4.C. Arun ... Appellants
Versus
1.G. Karthick
2.M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No. 6, Hadows Road, Reliance House,
6th floor, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.
No. 5976 of 2015 dated 14.09.2018 on the file of the Chief Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal / Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr. T.G. Ravichandran.
For Respondents : Mr. P. Suresh Srinivasan for R2.
R1 – ex parte.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
CMA No. 1910 / 2023
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed challenging the award passed by the
Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 5976 of 2015 dated 14.09.2018.
2.The appellants had filed claim petition seeking compensation
before the Tribunal stating that on 03.04.2015, while the deceased was
travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN
05 AK 8544 ridden by the first appellant from South to North on the left
side of the Saidapet Maraimalai Adikalar Bridge, a lorry bearing
Registration No.TN 46 H 0187 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner hit against the motor cycle, as a result of which the
deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot and the first
appellant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital.
3.The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
4.The second respondent filed counter denying all the averments
made in the claim petition stating that the vehicle was not insured with
the second respondent at the time of the accident; and hence the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 1910 / 2023
respondent is not liable to pay compensation; that the accident occurred
due to the negligent driving of the first appellant; that the petition is bad
for non-joinder of necessary parties; and that in any case, the
compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
5. The appellants examined one witness on their side as PW.1 and
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. On the side of the second respondent, RW1
was examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 were marked.
6.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent and
awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the appellants to be paid by
the respondents 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants had
preferred the instant appeal.
7.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the award
of compensation passed by the Tribunal is meagre and requires
enhancement. The Tribunal had fixed very low monthly income at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 1910 / 2023
Rs.6,500/- and adopted wrong multiplier '7' by presuming the age of the
deceased as 62 years at the time of the accident. The postmortem
certificate reveals that the age of the deceased was 58 years at the time of
the accident. The Tribunal had ignored the said finding and hence,
prayed for allowing the appeal.
8.The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal, and
the learned counsel for the appellants sought permission of this Court to
dispense with the notice to the first respondent. He has made an
endorsement to that effect. Hence, notice to the first respondent is
dispensed with.
9.The learned counsel for the second respondent, per contra,
submitted that the award of compensation is just and reasonable and no
interference is called for. The age of the deceased was mentioned as 62
years in Ex.P.3, the accident register and subsequently, correction was
made showing the age as 58 years. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in
fixing the age of the deceased between 61 - 65 and rejected the age
mentioned in the postmortem certificate. Further, the learned counsel
submitted that the award under all the heads are reasonable and no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 1910 / 2023
interference is called for.
10.The only question that arise for consideration in the instant
appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
11.On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the deceased was a
home maker. It is true that the contribution of the home maker cannot be
measured in monetary terms. However, this Court is of the view that
notional income fixed by the Tribunal is very low. Considering the age
of the deceased and the year of the accident (i.e.) 2015, it would be just
and reasonable to fix the notional income at Rs.12,000/- per month. It is
seen that in the postmortem certificate, the age of the deceased was
shown as 58 years. From Ex.P.3, Accident register, it is seen that the
deceased was admitted by a driver of the ambulance. The evidence
suggests that the deceased was incapable of disclosing her age at the time
of admission. In such circumstances, the age mentioned in the accident
register even if it has been subsequently corrected cannot be the basis to
determine the age. Ex.P.4, postmortem certificate reveals the age as 58
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 1910 / 2023
years. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the age of the deceased
has to be taken as 58 years for computing the loss of income and hence,
the correct multiplier is 9 and the appellants are entitled to 10%
enhancement towards future prospects. Since there are four dependents,
1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the loss
of income would be Rs.12,000/- + Rs.1200 (10% of Rs.12,000) =
Rs.13,200 X 12 X 9 X 2/3 = Rs.9,50,400/-. Further, no amount has been
granted under the head loss of love and affection. Hence, the appellants
are granted Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of love and affection
which comes to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-. The award under the other
heads is 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 dependancy 3,64,000 9,50,400 Enhanced
2. Funeral Expenses 15,000 15,000 Confirmed
3. Transport charges 6,000 6,000 Confirmed
4. Loss of estate 15,000 15,000 Confirmed
5. Loss of love and affection --- 1,60,000 Granted
Total 4,00,000 11,46,400 Enhanced by
Rs.7,46,400/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 1910 / 2023
12. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
at Rs.4,00,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.11,46,400/- 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 respondents are 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
their respective shares along with proportionate interest and costs, less
the amount if any, already withdrawn. The appellants are directed to pay
the necessary court fee if any on the enhanced award amount. No costs.
24.08.2023
ay
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
1.The Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 1910 / 2023
Chief Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 1910 / 2023
SUNDER MOHAN, J
ay
C.M.A. No. 1910 of 2023
Dated: 24.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
