Madras High Court
R.Vinothini vs Vinayagasundharam on 8 September, 2023
CMA No. 2237 / 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2237 of 2022
1. R.Vinothini
2. Minor R.Raghul
3. Minor R.Raghav
4. Minor R.Rakshana
5. Santha
(Minor appellants 2, 3 and 4 represented
by NF and Natural Guardian mother R.Vinothini) ... Appellants
Versus
1. Vinayagasundharam
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Building No. 142, I Floor, ECR Main Road,
Near Latha Steel House,
Kottupalayam,
Puducherry – 605 008. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.
No. 3563 of 2017 dated 22.04.2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal/II Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.
For Appellants : Mrs. Ramya V. Rao
For Respondents : Mr. B.Siva Kollappan for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
CMA No. 2237 / 2022
R1 – ex parte
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed challenging the award passed by the
Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 3563 of 2017 dated 22.04.2022.
2.The appellants had filed claim petition seeking compensation
before the Tribunal stating that on 21.05.2017, when the deceased was
walking on the left side of the Ramanathankuppam – Pudhuchathiram
road from East to West, a Tata ACE Van bearing Registration No. TN 91
A 8991 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in the
opposite direction, dashed the deceased, as a result of which, the
deceased sustained fatal injuries.
3.The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
4.The second respondent filed a counter denying all the averments
made in the claim petition stating that the deceased did not die due to the
accident; that the deceased had died due to the electric wire which was
fallen from electric plant in the road; that as per the post-mortem
certificate, there is no external injury and the reason for the death has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2237 / 2022
been mentioned as 'Intracranial Haemorrhage' which is possible only due
to electric shock; and that the second respondent is not liable to pay
compensation; and that in any event, the compensation claimed by the
appellants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5.The appellants examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.9. On the side of the second respondent, RW1 was examined and
Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2 were marked.
6.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Tata ACE Van and directed the second
respondent to pay a sum of Rs.21,36,800/- to the appellants at the first
instance and recover it from the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said
award, the appellants had preferred the instant appeal.
7.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the award
of compensation is meagre in as much as very low notional income of
Rs.9,000/- per month was fixed by the Tribunal although the appellants
had established the fact that the deceased was working as Mason.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2237 / 2022
However, the learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the
compensation awarded under the other heads are just and reasonable.
8.Though notice has been served on the first respondent, none has
entered appearance on his behalf.
9.The learned counsel for the second respondent, per contra,
submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable and no interference is called for.
10.The only question that arise for consideration in the instant
appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
11.On perusal of records, this Court finds that the appellants have
examined PW1, wife of the deceased to show that the deceased was
working as Mason. However, no documentary proof was filed to
establish the income earned by the deceased. Considering the age,
avocation of the deceased, the number of dependents and the year of the
accident, this Court is of the view that it would be just and reasonable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2237 / 2022
fix Rs.14,000/- per month as notional income. Since the deceased was
aged 29 years at the time of the accident, the appellants are entitled to
40% enhancement towards future prospects and the multiplier applicable
is 17. Since there are five dependents, 1/4th has to be deducted towards
personal expenses. Therefore, the compensation under the head loss of
dependency would be Rs.14,000 + Rs.5,600 = Rs.19,600 X 12 X 17 X
3/4 = Rs.29,98,800/-. The award under the other heads are just and the
same are confirmed. Thus, the award of the Tribunal is modified as
follows;
S. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of dependency 19,27,800 29,98,800 Enhanced
2. Loss of estate 16,500 16,500 Confirmed
3. Funeral expenses 16,500 16,500 Confirmed
4. Loss of consortium 1,76,000 1,76,000 Confirmed
Total 21,36,800 32,07,800 Enhanced by
Rs. 10,71,000/-
12.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
at Rs.21,36,800/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.32,07,800/- together with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2237 / 2022
interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period if any) from the
date of petition till the date of deposit. The second respondent is directed
to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with
interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of six (6) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of this
Judgment at the first instance and recover it from the first respondent. On
such deposit, the first appellant is permitted to withdraw Rs.13,00,000/-
and the fifth appellant is permitted to withdraw Rs.4,07,800/- along with
proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already
withdrawn. The shares of the minor appellants 2 to 4 of Rs.5,00,000/-
each are directed to be deposited in the interest bearing Fixed Deposit in
any of the Nationalized Banks till they attain majority and the first
appellant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in six
months. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary court fee if any
on the enhanced award amount. No costs.
08.09.2023
ay
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2237 / 2022
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/
II Additional Sub Court,
Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2237 / 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J
ay
C.M.A. No. 2237 of 2022
Dated: 08.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
