Madras High Court

Padmini vs Gunaraj on 6 July, 2023

                                                                                  C.M.A.No.898 of 2022



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     Dated: 06.07.2023

                                                 CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                                    C.M.A.No.898 of 2022


                1.Padmini
                2.Arumugam                                                          ...Appellants


                                                            Vs.


                1.Gunaraj
                2.The Manager,
                   New India Assurance Company Limited,
                   No.594, Opli Towers, D.B.Road, R.S.Puram,
                   Coimbatore District 641 002.
                3.Suganandhini                                                      ...Respondents


                PRAYER : The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
                Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2021 in
                M.C.O.P.No.575 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
                Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,
                Namakkal.


                                   For Appellants     : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
                                   For Respondents : M/s.A.Salomi for R2
                                                       No appearance for R1 & R3


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




                1/9
                                                                                 C.M.A.No.898 of 2023



                                             JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of

compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 18.08.2021 made in

M.C.O.P.No.575 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/

Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,

Namakkal.

2. The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P.No.575 of 2018 on the file of

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of

cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal. They filed the said claim petition

claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Rinash,

who died in the accident that took place on 01.01.2017.

3. According to the appellants, on the date of accident i.e., on 01.01.2017

at about 12.30 a.m., while the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing

Registration No.TN 88 Y 3771, the driver of the car belonging to the 1 st

respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing

the traffic rules, dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased; due to the said

impact, the deceased sufferred injuries and succumbed to it; that the deceased,

who was aged 27 years, was an engineering graduate and working as a Manager

in Sri Murugan Transports; and that he was a sole bread winner of his family https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.898 of 2022

and hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs.40 lakhs as

compensation.

4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the car, remained ex-parte

before the Tribunal and hence, the learned counsel for the appellant has made

an endorsement to dispense with the notice to the first respondent. The learned

counsel for the appellant submitted that the third respondent was originally the

claimant and since no amount was awarded in her favour, notice to the 3 rd

respondent may be dispensed with and he has made an endorsement to that

effect also.

5. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed counter statement,

denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the accident

was not due to rash and negligent driving of the car belonging to the first

respondent and that in any case the deceased was also responsible for an

accident. In any event, the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive

and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined three witnesses as P.W.1

to P.W.3 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The 2nd

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

C.M.A.No.898 of 2023

respondent/Insurance Company did not let in any oral and documentary

evidence.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the deceased died only due to rash and negligent act of the

driver of the first respondent's vehicle and directed the second respondent being

the insurer of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.23,43,085/- as compensation to the

appellants and dismissed the claim petition of the 3rd respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal

having held that the first respondent was guilty of negligence, the second

respondent was liable to pay the compensation and that the deceased was an

engineering graduate, ought to have fixed his monthly income at Rs.18,000/- as

claimed by the appellants. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel

relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 2021 (1)

TNMAC 805 (DB) (Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs.

A.Senthilkumar and another) and 2016 (2) TNMAC 424 (DB) (S.Saraswathy

and another Vs. A.Elumalai and Oriental Insurance Company) and prayed for

enhancement.

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

C.M.A.No.898 of 2022

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/ Insurance

Company submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in 2016 (2)

TNMAC 424 (DB) has fixed the notional income at Rs.20,000/- by considering

the fact that the deceased was studying in engineering college and he had other

sources of income and hence, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to

the facts of the present case. She further submitted that the judgment of the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in 2021 (1) TNMAC 805 (DB) also may

not be applicable, since in the instant case the claimants have failed to establish

the income of the deceased. The salary certificate produced is of the year 2021,

whereas the accident had taken place in 2017. He further submitted that the

Tribunal has rightly fixed the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month and

there was no necessity for enhancement of the notional income and prayed for

dismissal of the appeal.

10. The short question involved in the instant appeal is whether the

notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per month for the

deceased, who is an engineering graduate, is justified. There is no dispute with

regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other

heads. It is seen from the records that the appellants had claimed Rs.18,000/- as

the monthly income drawn by the deceased at the time of his death. The

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

C.M.A.No.898 of 2023

Tribunal has disbelieved the documents produced by the appellants. However,

the Tribunal had fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per

month. Considering the fact that the deceased was an engineering graduate,

who finished his degree in the year 2015; that the accident is of the year 2017

and in similar case involving engineering students, this Court had fixed the

notional income between Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- for accidents of the year

2018, this Court is of the view that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal

can be enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.17,000/- in the facts and circumstances

of the case. The Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier '17'. After deducting 1/2

towards personal expenses as he was a bachelor, the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.17,34,000/-

{Rs.8,500/- [Rs.17,000/- - 8,500/-] x 12 x 17 }. The appellants are entitled to

40% enhancement towards future prospects and hence, a sum of Rs.6,93,600/-

is awarded towards future prospects. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal

under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby

confirmed. The compensation under the head loss of love and affection has to

be Rs.40,000/- each and hence, the same is reduced to Rs.80,000/- from

Rs.1,00,000/-.

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

C.M.A.No.898 of 2022

11. It is well settled that the Tribunal and the Courts have to award just

compensation. Though the claimants have claimed lesser compensation, the

Courts have power to grant just compensation, more than the amount claimed

by the claimants. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified

as follows:


                   S.N            Description    Amount        Amount awarded    Award
                    o                           awarded by      by this Court confirmed or
                                                 Tribunal           (Rs)      enhanced or
                                                   (Rs)                        granted or
                                                                                reduced
                  1.        Loss of                15,30,000         17,34,000 Enhanced
                            dependency
                  2.        Loss of future          6,12,000          6,93,600 Enhanced
                            prospects
                  3.        Loss of love            1,00,000           80,000 Reduced
                            and affection
                  4.        Medical                   71,085           71,085 Confirmed
                            Expenses
                  5.        Funeral                   15,000           15,000 Confirmed
                            Expenses
                  6.        Loss of estate            15,000           15,000 Confirmed
                            Total                  23,43,085         26,08,685 Enhanced by
                                                                               Rs.2,65,600/-

12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.23,43,085/- is hereby

enhanced to Rs.26,08,685/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellants/claimants are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.898 of 2023

directed to pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. The

1st appellant being the mother of the deceased is entitled to a sum of

Rs.16,08,685/-, the 2nd appellant being the father of the deceased is entitled to a

sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. The 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount along with interest

and costs, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of six weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the