Madras High Court
Thilagavathi vs M.Anandha Babu on 21 September, 2023
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
1.Thilagavathi
2.Murugan
3.Swetha Appellants
Vs
1.M.Anandha babu
2.M/s Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd,
(Having Branch Office at No.454/4, Ram Complex,
Chinnery Vavalkadu, Near New Bus Stand West,
Pallapatty, Salem.
3.T.Gopal Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree in
M.C.O.P.No.669 of 2021 dated 01.02.2023 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.
For appellants : Mr.R.Navaneetha Krishnan
For R2 : Ms.R.Sree Vidhya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellants challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the
Tribunal in the award dated 01.02.2023, made in M.C.O.P. No.669 of
2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District
Judge, Salem.
2. The appellants filed M.C.O.P. No.669 of 2021 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Special District Judge, Krishnagiri
claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one
Sukilash, who died in the accident that took place on 20.09.2020.
3.According to the appellants, on 20.09.2020 at about 9.30 hours,
when the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.
TN 93 A 3099 in a public road, the TATA ACE Tempo bearing
registration No. TN 93 A 7255 belonging to the first respondent insured
with the second respondent herein, came in a rash and negligent manner
and hit the two wheeler of the deceased; and as a result, the deceased
sustained fatal injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the Tata Ace,
remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
5.The second respondent filed a counter stating that the tempo
driver did not have a valid driving license and violated the policy
conditions; therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation; the
accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased and the
deceased did not wear helmet at the time of the accident; and that in any
event, the compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the appellants, the first
appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1
to P.18. The second respondent examined two witnesses as R.W1 and
R.W.2 and did not mark any documents. Four Court documents were
marked as Exs.X1 to X4.
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the Tata Ace belonging to the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
and directed the second respondent being insurer of the vehicle to pay the
compensation of Rs.11,65,000/- to the appellants at the first instance and
recover the same from the first respondent owner of the offending
vehicle, for violation of policy conditions.
8.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
deceased was working as a construction supervisor in a construction
company, at the time of the accident. However, the Tribunal had fixed a
meagre notional income of Rs.10,000/- including future prospectus,
which requires to be enhanced. The Tribunal has also awarded a meagre
amount towards loss of love and affection and prayed for enhancement of
the same.
9. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal and
hence, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that notice to the
first respondent may be dispensed with and made an endorsement to that
effect. Hence, notice to R1 is dispensed with. The learned counsel
further submitted that the third respondent is not a necessary party and
hence, notice may be dispensed with for the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent
submitted that though the appellants claimed that the deceased was
working as a construction supervisor, no document was filed either to
prove the income or avocation of the deceased. In such circumstances,
the Tribunal was right in fixing the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- per month and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. The only question involved in the instant appeal is:
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable?
12. The appellants had established that the deceased was working
as a construction supervisor in SKS Construction, Mettur, through the
evidence of PW.1, the mother of the deceased. However, they have not
produced any document to prove the avocation and income of the
deceased at the time of accident. Considering the age of the deceased, his
avocation and the year of the accident, this Court is of the view that it
would be just and reasonable to fix the notional monthly income as
Rs.14,000/-. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2017(2)TNMAC 609 (SC) (National Insurance Company v. Pranay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
Sethi), the appellant would be entitled to 40% enhancement towards
future prospects. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and
therefore, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal expenses, which
is proper. By applying multiplier '18', the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal towards loss of income is modified as follows:
Rs.14,000/- + 5,600/- [Rs.14,000/- X 40%] X 12 X 18 X ½ =
Rs.21,16,800/-.
13. The appellants are each entitled for an amount of Rs.44,000/-
towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, Rs.1,32,000/- is awarded
under the said head. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the head funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/- is excessive and the same is
hereby reduced to Rs.16,500/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards loss of estate and hence, a sum of Rs.16,500/- is hereby awarded
towards loss of estate. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is modified as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded confirmed or
Tribunal by this enhanced or
(Rs) Court (Rs) granted
1. Loss of income 10,80,000/- 21,16,800/- Enhanced
2. Loss of estate - 16,500/- Granted
3. Loss of love and 60,000/- 1,32,000/- Enhanced
affection (44,000x3)
4. Funeral expenses 25,000/- 16,500/- Reduced
Total 11,65,000/- 22,81,800/- Enhanced
by
Rs.11,16,800/-
14. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.11,65,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.22,81,800/- together with
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 / Insurance
Company 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 the same
from the first respondent. On such deposit, the third appellant is
permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- of the award amount and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
the appellants 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the remaining amount
equally along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if
any, already withdrawn. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary
Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced award amount. No costs.
21.09.2023
vkr/vca
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To:
1.The Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal,
Special District Judge, Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
vkr/vca
C.M.A.No.2153 of 2023
21.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
