Madras High Court
Govindammal vs G.Ravi on 22 November, 2023
Author: M. Dhandapani
Bench: M. Dhandapani
C.M.A.No.2645 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.11.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.2645 of 2019
N.Perumal (Died)
1.Govindammal
2.P.Thirumalai
3.Rekha
4.P.Suthakar
5.P.Suvalatha ... Appellants
Vs.
1.G.Ravi
2.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rai's Tower, 2nd Floor,
Plot No.2054, 2nd Avenue,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 04.08.2018 made
in M.C.O.P.No.7841 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (III Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
For Respondents : Died (Steps due) [R1]
Mr.S.Arun Kumar [R2]
*****
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2645 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The claimants are before this Court seeking an enhancement of the
award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Small Causes
Court), Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.7841 of 2013, dated 04.08.2018.
2. The facts in brief are as follows :-
On 29.09.2013 at about 15.00 hrs, the deceased Perumal was riding
his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 07 Y 9021 proceeding at East Coast
Road, near Perumal chery bridge, Kanchipuram District, at that time, a lorry
bearing Reg.No.TN 25 AA 1743 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, came from behind and hit the motorcycle in which the deceased
was travelling. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and
was admitted as inpatient at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital,
Chennai. Thereafter, the deceased was in continuous treatment till
15.01.2014 and on which date, he succumbed to the said injuries. Though
initially the claim petition was filed by the deceased before his death,
however, after his death, the legal heirs of the deceased have impleaded
themselves in the claim petition and have contested the matter claiming
compensation for the death of the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz.,
P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 10 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On the
side of the respondents, they have examined one witness viz., R.W.1 and no
documents were marked. After considering all the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs.1,16,200/- as compensation to
the claimants. Not satisfied with the same, the appellants/claimants are
before this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
submitted that, the Tribunal has categorically held that the accident had
happened due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry
and inspite of the fact that P.W.2, who has given continuous treatment to
the deceased had opined that the deceased died due to the complications
arising out of the head injury. In the absence of any evidence to disclose
that the deceased had not died due to the complications of the head injury,
the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the deceased had not died due to
the complications of the injuries sustained in the accident is wholly
impermissible. Therefore, he submitted that this Court may set aside the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
finding recorded by the Tribunal and grant appropriate compensation to the
claimants.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/insurance company submitted that, the Tribunal, based on the
evidence of P.W.2, doctor, who had initially given treatment to the
deceased coupled with the evidence of R.W.1, the doctor who had given
treatment to the deceased after his discharge from the hospital, who has
conclusively submitted that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not
cause for his death, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the death
was not as a result of the accident and had negatived the claim for
compensation, which does not require any interference.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and perused
the materials available on record.
7. The factum and manner of the accident is not in dispute and the
fact that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the driver of the first respondent's vehicle is also not is dispute. The only
issue is with regard to the death of the deceased, whether it is on account of
the injuries sustained in the accident which had resultantly taken its effect
causing the death of the deceased after four months or was it due to the old
age. In this regard, while the claimants rely on the evidence of P.W.2, the
doctor who had initially treated the deceased, the respondents rely on the
evidence of R.W.1, who had treated the deceased after his discharge. It is
the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor who treated the deceased that the
deceased had died due to the complications arising out of the head injury. In
fact, it is the further deposition of P.W.2 in cross examination, that the
deceased was surviving on ventilator support when he was in the hospital
and that he was discharged after 53 days. It is the further evidence of P.W.2
that he cannot opine as to the length of period the deceased would have
survived after discharge. In this background, R.W.1, who was the examined
on behalf of the insurance company, who has given treatment to the
deceased after his discharge from the hospital as stated in his deposition
that the deceased had recovered from the injuries. However, in cross
examination, R.W.2 he had deposed that the cause of the deceased would be
spelt out only on the basis of his last treatment records. In this background,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Tribunal has relied merely upon Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 to hold that in the
absence of the last treatment records being provided by the claimants, the
deceased could not be held to have died due to the complications arising on
account of the head injuries suffered during the accident.
8. Though such a finding has been rendered by the Tribunal,
however, the Tribunal has lost site of a crucial fact which stares writ large
on the finding recorded by the Tribunal. It is deposition of R.W.1 that the
deceased was taking treatment after his discharge with R.W.1. So R.W.1
was the doctor who was treating the deceased and who would be well aware
of the health condition and complications of the deceased. Since the
treatment itself has been given by R.W.1, this Court is at a loss to
understand as to the deposition of R.W.1 who has spoken that he cannot
give any opinion about the cause of death without looking at the last
treatment records. If R.W.1 after the discharge of the deceased had given
treatment to the deceased, he would have been the last doctor who would
have treated the deceased after discharge. However, the deposition of
R.W.1 is not clear as to whether he alone had treated the deceased or the
deceased was taking treatment elsewhere. However, R.W.1 has stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the deceased had not sustained injuries which are fatal in nature in the
accident, which is contra to the deposition of P.W.2, who has stated that the
deceased had died due to the complications arising out of the head injury.
When it is the categorical deposition of P.W.2 that the deceased was
thriving on ventilator support when he was admitted after the accident, this
Court is at a loss to understand as to how the doctor R.W.1 would depose to
the extent that the injuries sustained in the accident by the deceased were
not fatal in nature. In such a back drop, placing reliance on the evidence of
R.W.1 to negative the deposition of P.W.2, who was the doctor who had
treated the deceased at the first instance when he was admitted immediately
after the accident. This Court would definitely have to give no credibility to
the evidence of P.W.2, who is a government doctor than that of R.W.1, who
was not aware of the complications of the deceased at the earliest point of
time. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 is of the
evidence of R.W.1 and considering the legislative intent behind the Motor
Vehicles Act, necessarily this Court has to hold that the deceased had died
due to complications arising out of the injuries suffered by him in the
accident, which was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the first respondent's vehicle, which was insured with the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent and therefore, the second respondent/insurance company is
liable to compensate the claimants.
9. The Tribunal, by arriving at a conclusion that the deceased had not
died due to the consequences of the accidental injuries, had awarded
following compensation :
S.No. Description Amount (in
Rs.)
1 Extra Nourishment 50,000/-
2 Medicine 10,000/-
3 Conveyance 50,000/-
4 Attenders Charges 6,200/-
Total 1,16,200/-
10. Since this Court had arrived at a conclusion that the deceased had
died due to the complications arising out of the head injury suffered by the
deceased in the accident, this Court is inclined to award compensation to
the claimants by adopting the multiplier method. It is claimed by the
claimants that at the time of death, the deceased was working as a Driver
and earned a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. It has been the view of the
courts that even a housewife is entitled to monthly income to be fixed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the purpose of qualifying their work for the purpose of quantifying the
amount receivable by them. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance
Company reported in 2014 (1) TANMAC 459, fixing a notional income of
Rs.10,000/- and adding future prospects at 25%, as has been held by the
Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases
680, the total income per month is quantified at Rs.12,500/-. Deducting
1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of income to
the family is arrived at Rs.8,333/- per month and the deceased being aged
about 50 years, as evidenced from the records, adopting the multiplier of 11
as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC &
Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the loss of income to the family is
arrived at Rs.8,333/- * 12 * 11 = Rs.10,99,956/-, which is worked out as
follows :
Loss of Income Amount in
Rs.
Notional income (Per month) 10,000
Add: Future Prospects (Rs.10,000 x 25%) (Per 2,500
month)
12,500
rd
Less: Personal expenses (1/3 ) (Rs.12,500/- x 4,167
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Loss of Income Amount in
Rs.
1/3rd) (Per month)
8,333
Notional income (per annum) (Rs.8,333/- x 12) 99,996
Total 10,99,956
11. Further, this Court awards a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the
claimants towards loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is
awarded under the heads funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively.
12. In view of the above, this Court awards the following
compensation to the claimants :
S.No. Description Awarded by
this Court
(Amount in
Rs.)
1 Loss of income 10,99,956/-
2 Loss of love and affection 2,00,000/-
3 Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total 13,29,956/-
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Tribunal is modified enhancing the compensation amount from
Rs.1,16,200/- to Rs.13,29,956/-. The second respondent/Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.7841 of 2013 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded
by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period
of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. From
the above said award amount, the appellants 1, 3 and 5 are entitled to
Rs.3,32,489/- each, the second appellant is entitled to Rs.1,66,245/- and the
fourth appellant is are entitled to Rs.1,66,244/-. On such deposit being
made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount as apportioned
above directly to the bank accounts of the appellants/claimants through
RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter upon production of proof
with regard to payment of Court fee on the enhanced compensation. The
appellants/claimants are directed to pay necessary additional Court fee on
the enhanced compensation amount. No costs.
22.11.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sp
M.DHANDAPANI, J.,
sp
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Small Causes Court), Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
