Madras High Court
Having Branch Office At vs N.Ponni on 6 August, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
CMA.No.1966 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.1966 of 2024 and
C.M.P.No.15223 of 2024
M/s.The Cholamandalam General
Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.2, 2nd Floor, Dare House,
NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001
Having branch office at
No.872, TNHB Road,
Kakkalur, Tiruvallur 602 001. ... Appellant
vs.
1. N.Ponni
2. P.Narayana Murthy
3. N.Chandrasekaran ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment, dated
27.01.2023 in M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal No.1, Special District Court, Thiruvallur.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1966 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sharath Chandran
For R1 & R2 : Ms.A.Subadra for
Ms.M.Malar
(R3 remained absent and was set ex parte in the lower
court and hence notice may be dispensed with)
JUDGMENT
Challenging the quantum of compensation passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Special District Court, Thiruvallur in
M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2022, the present appeal is filed by the appellant /
Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited, Kakkalur,
Tiruvallur.
2. The claimants / respondents 1 and 2 filed a claim petition
under Section 166 & Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in
M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2022 before the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
No.1, Special District Court, Thiruvallur, seeking compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of their son Lakshmipathy, in a road accident
which happened on 11.07.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The brief case of the appellant / claimant is as follows :
On 11.07.2022, at about 8.30 a.m., Lakshmipathy (deceased)
was standing on the road with his bicycle on the left side of the
Maduravoyal bypass road bridge , Mudichor road junction. A speeding
lorry bearing registration number TN-12-C-3399, hit the deceased as a
result of which, he sustained injuries and died on the spot.
4. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the lorry was the cause of the accident and that since the
owner of the lorry had insured his vehicle with the appellant, the
Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited, Kakkalur,
Tiruvallur, the owner and the insurer of the Lorry are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to them.
5. The 3rd respondent remained absent and therefore was set
ex parte in the Tribunal. The appellant / Insurance company resisted the
claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under Section
170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, awarded
a compensation of Rs.19,35,000/- together with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization under
the following heads. It also held that the liability of the owner and the
Insurer are joint and several:
S.No. Heads Calculation Amount
1 Loss of Notional income = Rs.12,000/- p.m. Rs.18,14,400/-
Dependency (add 40% future prospects)
= 12,000+4800=16,800
= Rs.16,800/- (50% deduction)
= 16,800-8400=8,400
= Rs.8,400 X 12 X 18 (Multiplier)
=Rs.18,14,400/-
2 Loss of 16,500/- Rs.16,500/-
Estate
3 Loss of 44,000 X 2 Rs.88,000/-
Consortium
4 Funeral 16,5000 Rs.16,500/-
expenses
Total Rs.19,35,400/-
7. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, the appellant / Insurance Company has filed the present
appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking for
enhancement of compensation amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Heard Mr.K.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant / Insurance Company and Mr.A.Subadra, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
9. Mr.K.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant / Insurance Company contended that the deceased was studying
XI standard on the date of accident but the Tribunal fixed the notional
income as Rs.12,000/- per month which is on the higher side and
therefore the same has to be scaled down.
10. Per contra, Mr.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in P.Revathi & another vrs. R.Karpagavalli & another reported in
CDJ 2023 MHC 7620 and contended that the Division Bench of this
Court had fixed the monthly notional income at Rs.12,600/- for a XI
standard student and therefore the same analogy may be adopted in the
present case also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. It is seen from the records that Lakshmipathy was a student
and was aged 16 years before his death. In the decision reported in
P.Revethi case (cited supra), it has been held thus:
"22. Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the
insurance company would however submit that being a
11th standard student; it will be too premature to assume a
larger income for her. This Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court have repeatedly held that this grant of compensation
necessarily involves certain amount of guess work and
there cannot be mathematical precision in awarding
compensation. Considering the overall circumstances, we
find that the notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month with
an addition of 40% towards future prospects would be just
and equitable in the circumstances of the case. If we are to
re-work the compensation on the above basis, the monthly
income of the deceased should be taken at Rs. 12,600/- and
multiplier of 18 has to be applied. The total loss of income
works out to Rs.12,600/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.27,21,600/-. We
have to deduct 50% of the same towards personal expenses
and the total loss of dependency would be Rs 13,60,800/-.
The two claimants would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each
towards loss of love and affection. They would also be
entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Though medical bills to
the tune of Rs.48,416/- were produced, the Tribunal has
granted only Rs.40,000/-. No reason has been assigned by
the Tribunal for reduction of the claim of medical expenses
which is based on bills. We therefore find that the
claimants would be entitled to the entire amount of
Rs.48,416/- towards medical expenses. Thus, the total
compensation works out to Rs.15,19,216/-, which we round
off to Rs.15,20,000/-.
12. In the instant case, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the
notional income as Rs.12,000/- per month and therefore I do not see any
reason to interfere with the same.
13. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(ii) The quantum of compensation passed by the Tribunal is
upheld.
(iii) The present appellant / Cholamandalam General Insurance
Company Limited and the third respondent are jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation of Rs.19,35,400/- as per the Award of the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, (less the amount
already deposited) to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2022 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Special District Court,
Thiruvallur within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
(iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants are at liberty 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.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation : Yes / No
vum
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1,
Special District Court, Thiruvallur.
2. The Cholamandalam General
Insurance Company Limitedtd.,
No.2, 2nd Floor, Dare House,
NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
R.HEMALATHA, J.
vum
C.M.A.No.1966 of 2024 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
