Madras High Court
Raghul vs Suresh on 28 November, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
C.M.A.Nos.1822 and 1823 of 2021
In C.M.A.No.1822 of 2021
Raghul ...Petitioner
Versus
1.Suresh
2.Ravichandran
3.The Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Mettur Road, Erode – 638 011. ...Respondents
Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 to preferring this memorandum of grounds of Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of the compensation in the
judgment and decree dated 20.11.2020 made in MCOP No.534/2017 on the
file of MACT/Spl. District Court at Erode.
[The Respondents – 1 & 2 are remained set ex-parte before tribunal, hence
notice may be dispensed with for R-1 & R2 in this Appeal]
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Appellant : Ma.P.Thangavel
For Respondents :
[R1 & R2] : Ex-Parte
[R3] : M/s.I.Malar.
In C.M.A.No.1823 of 2021
1.Sheela
2.Ramesh ...Petitioners
Versus
1.Suresh
2.Ravichandran
3.The Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Mettur Road, Erode – 638 011. ...Respondents
Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 to preferring this memorandum of grounds of Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of the compensation in the
judgment and decree dated 20.11.2020 made in MCOP No.524/2017 on the
file of MACT/Spl. District Court at Erode.
[The Respondents – 1 & 2 are remained set ex-parte before tribunal, hence
notice may be dispensed with for R-1 & R2 in this Appeal]
For Appellants : Ma.P.Thangavel
For Respondents :
[R1 & R2] : Ex-Parte
[R3] : M/s.I.Malar.
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, with memorandum of grounds of Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals for enhancement of the compensation by the
respective claimants, against the order and decree dated 20.11.2020 made in
MCOP Nos.524 and 534 of 2017 on the file of MACT/Spl. District Court at
Erode.
2.The case of the claimants is as follows:
(I). On 03.05.2017 at about 08:05 am, the deceased Srivarsau was
travelling along with his brother Raghul (claimant in M.C.O.P.No.534 of
2017) in a two wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN 66 L 774 from Bhavani to
Erode main road. While they reached near, Sri Bharani Finance
Kalingarayanpalayam, a bolero pick-up goods vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN
56 J 7782 came in the opposite direction in a very high speed and hit the
two wheeler which resulted in causing multiple injuries to both the rider and
the pillion rider. Subsequently, the deceased, Srivarsau died on 05.05.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(II). The parents of Srivarsau claimed compensation for a sum of
Rs.12,00,000/-, and the injured claim ant, namely Raghul claimed
compensation for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, by invoking Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act. Both the claim petitions have been jointly tried and
common evidence was recorded by the Tribunal, in MCOP.No.534/2017.
The driver and the owner of Bolero Van remained ex-parte and Insurance
Company has contested the claim petition.
(III). The Tribunal, based on the evidence placed on record, has held
in point No.1, that the driver of the Bolero Pick-up van is responsible for the
accident, which resulted in causing death of the deceased as well as the
injuries to the claimant Raghul.
(IV). In point No.2, the Tribunal quantified the compensation for the
death of deceased Srivarsau, and awarded Rs.12,00,000/-.
(V). The Tribunal quantified the compensation payable to the
injured/ claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.8,80,928/-. Aggrieved over the
Award, the claimants have come forward with the appeals, seeking
enhancement. The Insurance Company has not filed any appeal challenging
the Award.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, as far as the
notional income fixed for the deceased, the Tribunal has not fixed the
proper notional income. Even though the evidence was adduced to the effect
that the deceased was a hotel server and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/-,
the Tribunal has only fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which is on the lower side.
Hence, prays to enhance the same. Similarly, he has also prayed for
enhancement compensation for the injured claimant on the ground that is on
the lower side.
4. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Co.,
vehemently opposed for enhancement of compensation and has submitted
that the compensation already awarded under various heads are on the
higher side. Hence prays for lowering the compensation.
5. Heard both sides and perused all the available materials on record.
6. The deceased in this case namely, Srivarsau was a hotel server,
however, before the Tribunal, the claimants were not able to produce any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence to prove his monthly income. The Tribunal has considered the age
of the deceased and other aspects as notionally fixed the income of the
deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month.
7. The deceased was aged about 19 years, and according to the
claimants, he was a manual worker. A Division Bench of this court in the
case of V.Rathika Vs. P.Anbazhagan and Ors. in C.MA.No.2421 of 2018
dated 02.08.2019 has fixed the notional income of the manual worker,
considering the age and year of accident, as sum of Rs.15,000/- per month.
Proper notional income of the deceased, after taking note of the age of the
deceased herein and the year of the accident, as Rs.14,000/- would be
proper. Accordingly, the compensation under the loss of Income of the
deceased is summed as follows:-
Annual Income Rs.14,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,68,000/-
40% Future Prospects Rs.67,200/-
Total Rs.2,35,000/-
50% Deduction of Personal Expenses Rs.1,17,500/-
8. The applicable multiplier is 18, thus the loss of income is
Rs.1,17,500/- X 18 = Rs.21,15,000/-. The claimants are entitled for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation under the head loss of consortium for a sum of Rs.40,000/-
each i.e., total Rs.1,20,000/- and since, the deceased died, the compensation
awarded under head of pain and suffering is hereby rejected. Even though
the Tribunal quantified the eligible total compensation constrained to grant
only a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- on the ground that the claimants have
restricted their claim.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Joginder Singh & Anr Vs. ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Company Civil Appeal No.6291 of 2019
(Arising out of SLP (civil) No.34239 of 2015) and Division Bench of this
Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office-1, 2nd Floor,
104-A, Peramanur Main Road, Salem – 7 Vs. T.P.Anies and 2 Ors,
[2020 (1) TN MAC 205 (DB)] has held that while deciding the scope of
awarding “Just Compensation”, even though the claimants have restricted
their claim, if they are entitled for more compensation, then it is the duty of
the Tribunal to award the appropriate compensation in terms of Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly the claimants are entitled to
compensation quantified by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. As far as the compensation to the injured is concerned, the
Tribunal has considered the various heads for awarding compensation and
awarded the same. This Court finds that there is no infirmity in the
compensation awarded.
11. Total compensation payable to the claimants in MCOP.No.524 of
2017 is as follows:-
S.No. Various Heads Awarded by Claims Tribunal Awarded by this Court
1. Loss of Rs.15,12,000/- Rs.30,24,000 /-
Dependency
2. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
3. Funeral Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Expenses
4. Loss of Rs.1,20,000/-
Consortium
5. Total Rs.16,86,873/- Rs.31,74,000/-
12.In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeals are modified and
partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.15,12,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.31,74,000/- [Rupees Thirty One
Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand] together along with interest at the rate of
7.5 % per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the amount
awarded by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this judgment to the credit of MCOP Nos.524 and 534 of 2017 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge,
Erode. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw
the awarded amount now determined by this Court along with interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, as per the apportionment
fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount now awarded
by this Court by directly giving credit to the Savings Bank Account of the
claimants. Since this Court has enhanced the compensation, the
appellants/claimants are directed to pay the necessary court fee, if any, on
the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs in the
present appeals.
28.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
nst
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.RAJASEKAR ,J
nst
To:
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode
2.The Spl. District Judge, Erode.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
C.M.A.Nos.1822 and 1823 of 2021
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
