Madras High Court
Latha vs S.K. Gunaseelan on 8 August, 2023
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2022
1.Latha
2.Rajesh
3.Dhanalakshmi ... Appellants
Vs
1.S.K. Gunaseelan
2.M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., TP Claim,
Legal Department, No.6, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
3.M.L. Johnson
4.M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Shawla's Building, Legal Department, II Floor,
No.154, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2021 made
in M.C.O.P.No.5841 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2023
For Appellants : Mr.Amar Dineshbhai Pandiya
For Respondents : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari for R2
Mr.M.B.Gopalan, for R4
Assisted by Mr.B.Raghavan
R1 – Ex parte
No Appearance for R3
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants
challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the
award dated 28.10.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No. 5841 of 2018 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes),
Chennai.
2. The appellants filed M.C.O.P. No.5841 of 2018 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes),
Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- as compensation for the death of
one Marimuthu, who died in the accident that took place on 26.03.2018.
3. According to the appellants, on 26.03.2018 at about 23.30
hours, while the deceased Marimuthu was travelling as a Cleaner in Tata
MGV lorry bearing Registration No. TN-22-BK-6028, the Mahendra and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2023
Mahendra Van bearing Registration No.TN-19-AB-7361 which was coming
in opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,
hit against the lorry and caused the accident; that in the above said accident;
the said Marimuthu sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence,
the appellants filed claim petition claiming compensation against the
respondents.
4. The first and third respondents remained ex parte before the
Tribunal.
5. The second respondent filed counter statement denying all the
averments made by the appellants in the claim petition; and stated that the
accident did not take place due to the negligence of the insured vehicle and
only due to the negligence of the vehicle insured with the fourth respondent
as that in any event the compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive
and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2023
6. The fourth respondent filed a counter stating that the FIR shows
that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the first
respondent; vehicle insured with the second respondent and hence, they are
not liable to pay compensation and that in any case, the claim is excessive
and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. The 2nd appellant examined himself as PW1 and one Mari, eye-
witness to the accident as PW2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18. The
respondent did not examine any witness or mark any document on their
side.
8. 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 first respondent; directed the
respondents 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- as
compensation to the appellants.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the
present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2023
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award
of compensation is meagre in as much as the notional income fixed by the
Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month is less. The Tribunal ought to have seen
that the accident took place in the year 2018 and the appellants have
established that the deceased was working as a Cleaner in a lorry and
earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month, besides daily batta at the rate of
Rs.200/- and prayed for enhancement of compensation.
11. Since R1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the learned
counsel for the appellants prayed for dispense with notice to R1. Hence,
notice to R1 is dispensed with. Though notice has been served on the third
respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, none appeared for him.
12. The learned counsel for the second respondent per contra
submitted that the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable
since the appellants have not established the avocation and income of the
deceased. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal was right in fixing
the notional income as Rs.10,000/- which itself is excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2023
13. The only question in the instant appeal is-
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
14. On perusal of the records, this Court finds that PW1, the son
of the deceased, who is the second appellant has stated in his deposition that
the deceased was working as a Cleaner in a lorry. The appellants have not
produced any evidence to prove the income of the deceased. The accident
took place in the year 2018. The deceased was aged 45 years at the time of
accident. Considering the age, job of the deceased, year of the accident and
the number of dependants, this Court is of the view that it would be just and
reasonable to fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.13,000/- per
month. The deceased is entitled to 25% towards future prospects. The
multiplier applicable is '14'. Since there are three dependants, 1/3rd has to be
deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the award of compensation
under the head loss of income is calculated as follows:-
13,000+3250(13,000x25%)x12x14x2/3= Rs.18,20,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2023
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.15,50,000/- to
Rs.19,70,000/-, break-up as follows -
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of dependency 14,00,000/- 18,20,000/- Enhanced
2. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
3. Loss of consortium 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/- Confirmed
4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
Total 15,50,000/- 19,70,000/- Enhanced
by
Rs.4,20,000/-
16. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.15,50,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.19,70,000/- 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 / 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2023
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 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 any,
on the enhanced award amount. No costs.
08.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AT
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2023
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
AT
C.M.A.No.1210 of 2022
08.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
