Madras High Court
Nandipanga Geetha vs M.V.Ramana Reddy on 3 August, 2023
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
1.Nandipanga Geetha
2.Nandipanga Suresh
3.Nandipanga Pushpa
4.Nandipanga Gunasundaramma
...Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
1.M.V.Ramana Reddy,
2.National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.66 Greams Road, Murugesan Naicken Complex
1st Floor, Chennai – 600 006. ...Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.03.2022
passed in M.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai (in the Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai – 104).
_____
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
For Appellants : M/s.Sunithi Abirami for
Mr.C.Richard Suresh Kumar
For Respondents : R1-Exparte
M/s.D.Bhasakaran 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 11.03.2022 made in M.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2019 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (In the Chief Court of Small
Causes), Chennai.
2. The appellants filed M.C.O.P. No.1492 of 2019 on the file of the the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, (In the Chief Court of Small
Causes), Chennai claiming a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation for the
death of one Nandipanga Mani, who died in the road accident that took place
on 12.07.2017.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
3. According to the appellants, on 12.07.2017 at about 5.30 a.m, while
the deceased Nandipanga Mani was travelling as a passenger in Bolero
Pikup bearing Regn.No.AP07–TF–1024 from Diguva Mallavaram to
Srikalahasthi at Thirupati to Naidupetta Bypass Road, Mittakandriga Village,
the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP16 – TJ – 0659 drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the Bolero Pikup
and caused the accident. In the above said accident, the said Nandipanga
Mani sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the appellants
filed claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents.
4.The 1st respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
5. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter statement
denying all the averments made by the appellants in the claim petition.
According to the second respondent, the accident had occurred at Tirupati to
Naidupetta Bypass Road, Mittakandriga Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal,
Tirupathi Urban District, Andhra Pradesh within the Jurisdiction of
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
Srikalahasthi Town Police Station, Tirupathi Urban District, Andhrapradesh,
the accident was registered in Cr.NO.166 of 2017, the first respondent, the
owner of the lorry was residing at Plot No.178/179 1st Cross Lane, 4th Road,
Jawahar Auto Nagar, Vijayawada, Nalagonda District, Telangana 508 206 and
the policy issuing office is also not situated within the jurisdiction of the
Hon'ble Court. Hence, the second respondent denied all the allegations and
averments contained in the claim petition expect those that were specifically
admitted therein and the age, occupation, nature of relationship with the
deceased were all denied by the second respondent. Thus, the total
compensation claimed by the appellants are highly excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
6. The 1st appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and one Pamujula
Janardhana Naidu/eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2.
Ten documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to Exs.P.10. Neither documents were
marked nor witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents filed on
the side of the appellants held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent
and directed the second respondent Insurance Company to pay a sum of
Rs.14,53,600/- as compensation to the appellants.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the
present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. M/s.Sunithi Abirami, the learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is meagre;
that though the appellants have established that the deceased was aged 48
years at the time of accident, he was doing milk vending business and was
also a cattle broker and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, the Tribunal had fixed
only Rs. 9,000/- per month as notional income. The learned counsel further
submitted that the Tribunal erroneously had added only 20% towards future
prospects whereas the deceased is entitled to 25% future prospects as per the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC). Therefore,
the learned counsel prayed for enhancement of compensation.
10. M/s.D.Bhaskaran, the learned counsel for the second respondent/
Insurance Company submitted that the award of the Tribunal is just and
reasonable; that the appellants have not produced any evidence either to
prove the avocation or the income of the deceased. For the reasons, best
known to the appellants that they had filed the claim petition in Chennai
although they were residing in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the learned
counsel submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the award of
compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Though notice has been served privately on the first respondent,
there is no representation for the first respondent either in person or through
counsel. The learned counsel for the appellants filed a verified petition dated
22.12.2022 that Court notice to the first respondent may be dispensed with
since he remained exparte before the Tribunal.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as
2nd respondent and perused the materials available on record.
13. The short question involved in the instant appeal is whether the
quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable.
14. From the materials on record, it is seen that the Tribunal,
considering the age of the deceased and his avocation, fixed the notional
income as Rs.9000/- per month for the accident which took place in the year
2017. It is also seen from the records that the appellants have not produced
any documents to prove the avocation or the income of the deceased.
However P.W.1, the wife of the deceased has stated that the deceased was
doing milk vending business and was also a cattle broker. Considering the
age of the deceased, the avocation, the cost inflation index, and the number of
dependants, this Court is of the view that it would be just and reasonable to
fix the notional income as Rs.12,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 48
years at the time of the accident and therefore 25% has to be added towards
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
future prospects. As per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (cited supra), the multiplier
applicable is ''13''. In view of the number of dependants, ¼th of his income
has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the compensation
under the head Loss of Dependency is calculated as follows:
Rs.12,000 + Rs.3,000 (25 % X Rs.12,000) X 12 X 13 X 3/4 = Rs.17,55,000/-
15. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are
just and reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. Thus, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.,14,53,600/- to
Rs.19,45,000/-, break-up as follows -
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded confirmed or
Tribunal by this enhanced or
(Rs) Court (Rs) granted
1. Loss of Income/ 12,63,600/- 17,55,000/- Enhanced
Dependency
2. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
3. Loss of consortium 1,60,000/- 1,60,000/- Confirmed
(Rs.40000 X 4)
4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
Total 14,53,600/- 19,45,000/- Enhanced
by
Rs.4,91,400/-
16. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.14,53,600/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.19,45,000/-. The second respondent
/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount, along
with interest and costs (excluding the default period if any) 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 first appellant is
permitted to Rs.10,00,000/-, the appellants 2 and 3 are each permitted to
withdraw Rs.4,00,000/- and the 4th appellant is permitted to withdraw
Rs.1,45,000/- along with proportionate interest and costs.
The appellants are directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if any, on the
enhanced award amount. No costs.
03.08.2023
dk
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
SUNDER MOHAN, J
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1517 of 2023
dk
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai
(In the Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai – 104).
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
C.M.A. No. 1517 of 2023
03.08.2023
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
