Madras High Court
Balaji vs S.Ramkumar on 5 August, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
CMA.No.1833 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.1833 of 2024
Alagesan (Died)
1. Balaji
2. Jamunarani ... Appellants
(Amended as per order in
I.A.No.723/2023 dated 23.02.2023)
vs.
1. S.Ramkumar
2. M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Lakshmi Complex, 1st Floor,
Bharathi Street, Omalur main road,
Swarnapuri, Salem. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated
01.07.2023 in M.C.O.P.No.568 of 2022 on the file of the Special District
Judge, MCOP Tribunal at Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Ramanathan
R1 : Ex parte
For R2 : Ms.G.Sukumari
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1833 of 2024
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.568 of 2022 on
the file of the Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem and they
filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of their mother, in a
road accident that took place on 12.03.2022.
2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants are as follows :
On 12.03.2022, Kalaiyarasi (deceased) was walking along
Butterfly bridge on Kandampatti Byepass Road. At about 10.15 a.m., a
speeding motorcycle bearing Registration Number TN-90-E-5526,
belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent
hit Kalaiyarasi, as a result of which, she fell down and sustained injuries
all over her body and was rushed to Government Hospital, Salem.
However, she died on the way to the hospital.
3. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the motorcycle was the cause of the accident and that since
the owner of the motorcycle had insured his vehicle with the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent / the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the owner
and the insurer of the motorcycle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation.
4. The first respondent remained absent and was set ex parte
in the Tribunal. The second respondent resisted the claim petition on all
the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
5. The trial Court after analysing the evidence on record,
awarded a compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- to the appellants 2 and 3
(claimants 2 and 3) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal also
directed the second respondent, the Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited to pay the said award amount and then recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle, the first respondent, since it was proved that the
driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the
accident. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the
tribunal, the appellants / claimants have filed the present appeal under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement of
compensation amount.
6. Heard Mr.L.Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Ms.G.Sukumari, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
7. Mr.L.Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that the Tribunal had deducted a sum of
Rs.2,70,000/- since one of the claimants died during the pendency of the
claim petition which is wrong and that the Award amount ought to have
been given to the surviving legal heirs of the deceased Kalaiyarasi. He also
contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not in accordance
with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009)
6 SCC 121.
8. It is also stated that the deceased Kalaiyarasi was an
agricultural labourer and also doing Cattle Business. In the absence of
income proof, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.10,000/-. It is pertinent to point out that the accident took place in the
year 2022 and in the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion
that fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-
would meet the ends of justice. As per the decision of the Supreme Court
of India in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported
in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601, 10% should be added towards future prospects
of the deceased. Since there are two dependents, 1/3rd of the deceased's
income should be deducted towards her personal expenses. The proper
multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 9 as per the decision
rendered in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
Calculation :
Notional Income = Rs.15,000/-
10% Future Prospects = Rs.1,500/-
Total = Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1,500/- = Rs.16,500/-
After 1/3 deduction = Rs.11,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Loss of dependency :
= Rs.11,000/- x 12 x 9
= Rs.11,88,000/-
In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.44,000/-, Rs.16,500/-
and Rs.16,500 for Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral
Expenses respectively as per the decision in National Insurance Co. vs
Pranay sethi and others (cited supra). Thus, the claimants are entitled to
a total compensation of Rs.13,09,000/- (11,88,000 + 88,000 + 16,500 +
16,500= 13,09,000) which is extracted here under.
S.No. Head Amount granted
by this court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.11,88,000/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.88,000/-
(Rs.44,000/- x 2)
3. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
Total Rs.13,09,000/-
9. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
from Rs.5,40,000/- to Rs.13,09,000/- which would carry interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.5,40,000/- to Rs.13,09,000/-.
iii. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay court fee for the
enhanced compensation amount, if any, within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order and the Registry is directed to
draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.
iv. The second respondent / Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount
i.e., Rs.13,09,000/- (less the amount already deposited) together
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of deposit within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.568 of 2022 on the file of the Special District Judge,
MCOP Tribunal, Salem and recover the same from the first
respondent on the same cause of action.
v. On such deposit being made, the appellants / claimants are at liberty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to withdraw the same as per the orders passed by the Tribunal after
following due process of law. The ratio of apportionment made by
the Tribunal shall be kept intact. However, it is made clear that the
appellants are not entitled for interest for the period of delay in
filing this appeal on the amount enhanced by this Court.
05.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mtl
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal at Salem.
2. M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Lakshmi Complex, 1st Floor,
Bharathi Street, Omalur main road,
Swarnapuri, Salem.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
R.HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
