Madras High Court
Veeraiah vs Mani on 8 March, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.1485 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.1485 of 2012
1.Veeraiah
2.Veerammal ... Appellants/Claimants
Vs.
1.Mani
2.The Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
T.S.No.3607/21,
Sathiamoorthy Road,
Pudukkottai. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, to allow the appeal to the effect that so as to
enhance the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to
compensation awarded by the Tribunal by modifying the judgment and
set aside the portion of judgment which exonerating the 2nd respondent
from its liability and fix the joint and several liability of the 2nd
respondent along with 1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.39 of 2012 by the
judgment dated 31.07.2012 by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Pudukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A(MD)No.1485 of 2012
For Appellants : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
For R1 : No Appearance
For R2 : Mr.C.Ramachandran
JUDGEMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. The claimants are the parents of the deceased, who was a pillion
rider in a motor bike. The deceased was bachelor who was studying in
the final year in I.T.I. The claimants have claimed a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) towards compensation. The
insurance company had filed a counter contending that the driver of the
motor bike was not possessing a valid driving license at the time of the
accident. They have also taken a defence that the claimants have to
establish the fact that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent
insurance company.
3. The tribunal after considering the evidence on either side, has
arrived at a finding that the driver of the motor bike was not having a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1485 of 2012
valid driving license. In view of the said finding, the tribunal has
exonerated the insurance company and saddled the owner of the vehicle
with the liability to pay the compensation.
4. Though the company has taken a defence that there is no
insurance for the vehicle, the tribunal has proceeded to hold that there
was an valid insurance policy for the vehicle on the basis of an
application filed by the insurance company under Section 170 of the
Motor Vehicles Act in I.A.No.37 of 2010. Therefore, it cannot be in
dispute that vehicle in dispute was insured with the 2nd respondent
insurance company.
5. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income of the student
as Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) per month and has deducted
1/3rd towards his personal expenses being a bachelor and thereafter,
arrived at a compensation of Rs.5,28,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh and
Twenty Eight Thousand only) towards loss of income. This is sought to
be attacked in the present appeal. The learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants had contended that the multiplier that was applied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1485 of 2012
by the tribunal is based upon the age of the claimants. He further
contended that the said position of law has been changed and the
multiplier which is relevant to the age of the deceased has to be taken
into consideration. Therefore, he contended that the multiplier applied by
the tribunal, namely 11 is erroneous and the correct multiplier is 18.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company had contended that the notional income taken by the tribunal
for an accident that has taken place in the year 2008 as Rs.6,000/-
(Rupees Six Thousand only) is on the higher side and only Rs.4,500/-
(Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred only) should have been taken as
notional income for an I.T.I student. He further contended that being a
bachelor, the tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3 rd, but should have
deducted 50% towards personal expenses. He prayed for sustaining the
award passed by the tribunal and not to enhance the award.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
8. Being a final year I.T.I student, I do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the notional income taken by the tribunal as Rs.6,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1485 of 2012
(Rupees Six Thousand only). In fact, the tribunal has not taken into
consideration the future prospects of the student. However, the deduction
has to be made at the rate of 50% and hence, the monthly income should
be taken as Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month. As
rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the
correct multiplier that is applicable to the present case is 18. If the loss of
personal income is calculated at 3000x18x12, it would be arrived at
Rs.6,48,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Forty Eight Thousand only). However,
the tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,28,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh and
Twenty Eight Thousand only) towards loss of income. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that except under the head of loss of income, this
Court would not like to interfere in the awarded compensation under the
other heads.
9. The compensation under the category of loss of income is
enhanced from Rs.5,28,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh and Twenty Eight
Thousand only) to Rs.6,48,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Forty Eight Thousand
only). In other aspects, the award of the tribunal is hereby confirmed.
The enhanced compensation amount will carry an interest at the rate of
7.5% from 17.09.2009 till the date of realization.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1485 of 2012
10. Though the owner of the vehicle has been served, he has not
chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. Though the owner
of the vehicle has been examined as P.W.2, he has not chosen to produce
the driving license of the driver, who has driven the vehicle. Even the
tribunal has arrived at a finding that the driver of the motor bike was not
having a driving license. In view of the fact that there is a breach of
policy condition, the award amount shall be paid by the insurance
company and thereafter, it may be recovered from the owner of the
vehicle by filing execution proceedings in M.C.O.P.No.39 of 2012.
11. With the above said observations, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal stands partly allowed. No costs.
08.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1485 of 2012
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District Judge), Pudukkottai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1485 of 2012
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
gbg
Order made in
C.M.A(MD)No.1485 of 2012
08.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
