Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs C.Rajakani on 22 December, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.66 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.11.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
C.M.A.(MD)No.66 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.1023 of 2018
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office,
1st Floor, Pillars Gate,
Opp. To Anna Stadium,
Balamore Road, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District ... Appellant
Vs.
1.C.Rajakani
2.M.R.Maheswaran
3.M.R.Subash
4.S.Chellammal
5.M.John ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree of the
Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.73 of 2015 dated 09.08.2017, on the file
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.66 of 2018
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For 5th Respondent : Mr.S.Louis
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/insurance company, challenging the compensation awarded on
certain counts by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief
Judicial Magistrate, at Nagercoil in M.C.O.P.No.73 of 2015 dated
09.08.2017.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed herein as
per the rank in M.C.O.P.No.73 of 2015.
3.The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, are as
under:-
The deceased was an owner cum seller of a provision stores at the
junction of Eathamozhi in Kanyakumari District and he earned not less
than Rs.25,000/- per month. He was doing business for thirty two years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, the second petitioner is
the elder son of the deceased, the third petitioner is the second son of the
deceased and the fourth petitioner is the mother who is a senior citizen.
On 20.03.2015 at about 18.45 hours, at Eathamozhi Rajakkamangalam
Main Road, at Vadakku Valiavilai, an auto bearing registration
No.TN-75-R-7850 was driven by the first respondent in a rash and
negligent manner from the opposite direction and the same dashed
against the deceased, who came in a bicycle and caused multiple fatal
injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was taken to Siva
hospital, Eathamozhi for first aid and thereafter, he was admitted in
Dr.Jeyasekharan hospital, K.P.Road, Nagercoil wherein he was given
treatment for five hours. Since his condition became critical, further he
was taken to Ananthapuri Hospitals and Research Institute,
Thiruvanathapuram for better treatment and was admitted on 21.03.2015.
Though a team of doctors headed by Dr.A.Marthanda Pillai took
himalayan efforts to save the live of the deceased, he passed away on
30.05.2015. Thus, the deceased was treated totally for 72 days. The
deceased was 55 years old at the time of accident. The accident occurred
solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
offending vehicle, auto was duly insured with insurer of the vehicle, the
second respondent.
4.The petitioners who are the dependants of the deceased, filed a
claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.73 of 2015 under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Kanyakumari praying for a compensation of
Rs.35,00,000/- along with interest from the date of accident till the date
of realization.
5.Three witnesses were examined and 24 documents were marked
on the side of the petitioners and two witnesses were examined and five
documents were marked on the side of the respondents.
6.Though the respondents refuted the allegations put forth by the
petitioners/claimants by categorically submitting that the manner of the
accident stated by the petitioners was not correct, the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence placed on record, came to
the finding that the accident took place only by the rash and negligent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
driving of the first respondent. On the basis of the various medical bills
and other supporting documents produced by the petitioners, the learned
Tribunal awarded total amount of Rs.20,47,000/- to the petitioners as
compensation as follows:-
Head Compensation awarded
(i)Income: Rs.10,000/- per year
(ii)Future Prospects: Rs.11,500/- [10,000 +1,500(15%
of monthly income)]
(ii)Multiplier: 11 (as per the age of the
deceased)
(iii)Loss of future income: Rs.15,18,000/-
[I.e.Rs.11,500x12x11]
(iv)Deduct Personal expenses: Rs.10,12,000/- [Rs.
rd
15,18,000-5,06,000 (1/3 of his
income can be deducted)]
(v)Spousal Consortium: Rs.1,00,000/-
(vi)Filial Consortium: Rs.1,00,000/-+Rs.1,00,000/-
(vii)Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000/-
for mother:
(viii)Medical Expenditure: Rs.6,50,000/-
(ix)Transportation charges and Rs.10,000/-
attendant charges:
(x)Funeral expenses: Rs.25,000/-
Total compensation awarded: Rs.20,47,000/- with interest @
7.5 % from the date of the claim
petition until the realization and
costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Challenging the said award, the appellant/New India Insurance
Company has filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the ground that the
learned Tribunal erred in considering 15% of notional monthly income
towards future prospects and ought to have fixed the notional monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. It was
further insisted at the time of arguments that the first respondent driver
drove the insured vehicle without badge and hence, the learned Tribunal
ought to have passed an award directing the second respondent to pay
and recover from the first respondent.
8.Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
submitted that since the auto is not a heavy vehicle requiring badge such
an argument putforth by the appellant cannot be sustained. He relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR
2017 SC 3668, wherein it is held that “Light Motor Vehicle includes
transport vehicle also. A holder of Light Motor Vehicle licence can drive
all the vehicles of class including transport vehicles or omnibus. The
gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be a Light Motor Vehicle and also a motor car or tractor or a road
roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs and holder
of driving licence to drive class of Light Motor Vehicle is competent to
drive a Transport Vehicle or Omnibus, the gross vehicle of which does
not exceed 7500 kgs.”
9.In view of the same, I have no hesitation to observe that the first
respondent who had a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle do not need
any badge for the purpose of driving the insured vehicle I.e. Auto.
Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
22.12.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Mrn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
