Madras High Court
Pitchammal vs Bakkialakshmi on 6 June, 2023
2023/MHC/2498
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.494 of 2023
1.Pitchammal,
2.Murugan
3.Gomathi :Appellants/Petitioners 2 to 4
/vs/
1.Bakkialakshmi
2.The United India Insurance Company Limited,
through its Branch Manager,
Office at No.2, Bhuvaneswari Complex,
Dr.Sankaran Road,
Namakkal – 637 001. :Respondents 1 and 2/Respondents
1 and 2
3.Esakkiammal :Respondent No.3/Petitioner No.1
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.664 of
2016, dated 19.11.2020, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal(Special Sub-Judge), Tirunelveli.
For Appellants :Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For Respondent-2 :Mr.J.S.Murali
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
JUDGMENT
*************
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
2.The parties are referred to herein as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
3.The deceased Manikandan, aged 28 years at the time of
accident, was a cleaner-cum-driver of the lorry bearing
Registration No. TN 88 9014 belonging to the first respondent and
insured with the second respondent. While the lorry reached near
Theivaseyalpuram, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner and due to heavy jerk, the deceased
who was sitting on the cleaner seat inside the cabin was thorwn
out of the lorry and fell down on the road and the rear wheel of
the lorry run over the deceased and sustained injuries and
immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital
Palayamkottai for treatment and admitted as inpatient and
thereafter succumbed to injuries.Hence the claim petition is filed
by the legal heirs of the deceased Manikandan.
4.It is the case of the second respondent that the claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The deceased
was working as driver in the Palani Murugan Lorry Service,
Tuticorin and not working as Cleaner cum driver in the first
respondent's lorry. The deceased fell down from the stopped lorry
and fell down on the road, sustained injuries and died. The first
respondent has violated the policy condition by allowing the
deceased to travel in the lorry as an unauthorized passenger in a
non-transport vehicle and the first respondent has paid premium
only for the driver of the lorry and not for any other person. Hence
prays for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the Petitioners, P.W.1 and
P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On the side
of the respondent,no witness was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3
were marked.
6.On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.R1, it
is seen that the first respondent vehicle has been insured with the
second respondent and a sum of Rs.150/- has been collected as
additional premium. Further the second respondent Insurance
Company has not produced any evidence to prove that the
deceased was an unauthorized passenger and hence the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has come to the conclusion that it is only the driver of the first
respondent vehicle who was rash and negligent in driving the
vehicle and awarded the compensation as follows:
1.for loss of dependency - Rs.17,13,600/-
2.Loss of consortium to - Rs.40,000/-
to the first Petitioner
3.Loss of Estate -Rs.15,000/-
4.for funeral expenses -Rs.15,000/-
---------------------
total -Rs.17,83,000/-
----------------------
A crime was also registered against the driver of the first
respondent vehicle. The evidence of record woud show that the
driver of the first respondent vehicle was rash and negligent in
driving the vehicle. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion
that only the driver of the first respondent's vehicle was rash and
negligent in driving the lorry. The Tribunal, however, has fixed the
notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-p.m..The evidence on
record clearly indicate that the deceased is a driver-cum-cleaner
by profession.
7.Therefore, when a person is acting as a driver-cum-cleaner
of the transport vehicle, his income would be more and even now a
days, acting driver will earn more than Rs.10,000/-per month.
Admittedly, the evidence on record clearly indicate that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deceased is a driver-cum-cleaner by profession. Hence, this Court
is of the view that fixing the notional income at Rs.8000/-p.m by
the Tribunal is very low and accordingly, in order to award a
reasonable compensation, taking note of the age of the deceased
and his profession as a driver, fixed the notional income at Rs.
12,000/-p.m and if 40% is added towards future prospects of the
deceased as per the dictum laid down in the Pranay Sethi's case,
the monthly income comes to Rs.16,800/-- and if one fourth of the
monthly income is deducted towards the personal expenditure of
the deceased, then the monthly income comes to Rs.12,600/- and if
multiplier of '17' is applied to the age group of the deceased, the
total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,600/- x 12 x17 = Rs.
25,70,000/-. Further, the award of loss of consortium to the first
petitioner at Rs.40,000/-, loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- and funeral
expenses at Rs.15,000/- stands confirmed. The Tribunal has failed
to award any amount to the Petitioners 2 and 3 and respondent
No.3 towards loss of love and affection and hence this Court
awards a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the Petitioners 2 and 3 and
respondent No.3 and the same comes to Rs.1.20,000/- and thus the
totalcompensation is arrived as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No Name of the Awarded by Awarded by Remarks
heads the Tribunal this Court
1 For loss of Rs. Rs. enhanced
dependency 17,13,600/- 25,70,400/-
2 Spousal Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- same
consortium to the
first
Petitioner/wife
3 For loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- same
4 For funeral Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- same
expenses
5. For loss of love ---- Rs. Newly
and affection to 1,20,000/- awarded
the Petitioners 2 (Rs.40,000/-
and 3 and each)
respondent No.3
6 Total Rs. Rs. enhanced
17,83,600/- 27,60,400/-
Thus the total compensation payable to the Petitioners is Rs.
27,60,400/-. Since the Petitioners have restricted their claim to Rs.
25 lakhs before the Tribunal, this court restricts the claim to Rs.25
lakhs with interest at the rate of 7.5%p.a from the date of claim
petition till the date of realization.
8.In the result,the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed
enhancing the compensation from Rs.17,83,600/- to Rs.25,00,000/-
with interest at the rate of 7.5%p.a., from the date of claim petition
till the date of realization. The second respondent Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Company is directed to deposit the above said modified enhanced
award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the award
amount already deposited,if any, to the credit of claim petition
before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made,
the first petitioner/wife is entitled to a sum of Rs.19 lakhs and the
Petitioners 2 and 3 and respondent No.3 are each entitled to Rs.2
lakhs each, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the
award amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary
application before the Tribunal. The Petitioners/claimants and
respondent No.3 are directed to pay the excess Court fee, if any,
towards the enhanced award amount to the credit of Registry. Only
on such payment being made, Registry is directed to draft the
decree in the appeal. No costs.
06.06.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
vsn
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Special Sub-Judge),
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR.,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.494 of 2023
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
