Madras High Court

Deepa vs K.Palaniswamy on 7 August, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R. Hemalatha

                                                                              CMA.No.2077 of 2024


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 07.08.2024

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                              C.M.A.No.2077 of 2024

                     1.Deepa
                     2.Minor. Kamalnath
                     3.Minor. Jayasurya                                 ... Appellants
                     (Appellants 2 and 3 are represented
                     by their guardian/mother Deepa, 1st appellant)
                                                         vs.

                     1.K.Palaniswamy

                     2.M/s.Raheja QBE General Insurance Company Limited,
                     Windsor House,
                     5th Floor, CST Road,
                     Kalina, Santacruz (East),
                     Mumbai - 400 098.                              ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated
                     07.02.2022 in M.C.O.P.No.1522 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident
                     Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.




                     1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      CMA.No.2077 of 2024


                                  For Appellants       : Mr.S.Nirmal Aditya
                                  For R2               : Mr.S.Arunkumar

                                                   JUDGMENT

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1522 of 2019

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge,

Salem. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death

of one Suresh, (the husband of the first claimant, father of the claimants 2

and 3) in a road accident that took place on 05.04.2019.

2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :

On 05.04.2019 Suresh (deceased) was riding his two wheeler

bearing Registration Number TN-29-BZ-5699 on Elampillai -

Kakkapalayam Main Road. When he was nearing Boys Higher Secondary

School, Perumagoundampatty at about 20.15 hours an Auto bearing

Registration Number TN-47-S-6215 belonging to the first respondent and

insured with the second respondent hit the two wheeler, as a result of

which, Suresh fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was

immediately rushed to the VIMS Hospital, Salem from where he was

referred to the Government Hospital, Salem. However, he died on the way

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

to the hospital.

3. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the Auto bearing Registration Number TN-47-S-6215 was the

cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the

second respondent, the Raheja QBE General Insurance Company Limited,

the owner and the insurer of the Auto 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 Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, awarded

a compensation of Rs.11,23,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, vide its

orders dated 07.02.2022.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the appellants / claimants have filed the present appeal under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement of

compensation amount.

7. Heard Mr.S.Nirmal Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the second

respondent.

8. Mr.S.Nirmal Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants contended that the deceased was aged 46 years on the date of

the accident and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as a Security

in a Private Spinning Mill. He also contended that the deceased was the

sole bread winner of the family and the award passed by the Tribunal is

too meagre and hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

9. Per contra Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the second respondent, the Raheja QBE General Insurance Company

Limited contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal is based on the

well laid principles of law which were in vogue at the time of passing of

the order and therefore, the same need not be disturbed at this stage.

10. The deceased Suresh was a Security in a Private Spinning

Mill. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal fixed the monthly

income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/-. It is pertinent to point out that the

accident took place in the year 2019 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, 25% should

be added towards future prospects of the deceased. Since there are three

dependents, 1/3rd of the deceased's income should be deducted towards his

personal expenses. The proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case

is 13 as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Calculation :

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Notional Income = Rs.15,000/-

25% Future Prospects = Rs.3,750/-

Total = Rs.15,000/- + Rs.3,750/- = Rs.18,750/-

After 1/3 deduction = Rs.12,500/-

Loss of dependency :

= Rs.12,500/- x 12 x 13

= Rs.19,50,000/-

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/-

and Rs.15,000/- 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.21,00,000/- (19,50,000 + 1,20,000 + 15000 +

15000= 21,00,000) which is extracted here under.

                                       S.No.               Head               Amount granted
                                                                               by this court
                                  1.           Loss of dependency               Rs.19,50,000/-
                                  2.           Loss of consortium               Rs.1,20,000/-
                                               (Rs.40,000/- x 3)
                                  3.           Funeral expenses                  Rs.15,000/-
                                  4.           Loss of Estate                    Rs.15,000/-
                                  Total                                         Rs.21,00,000/-





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

enhanced from Rs.11,23,000/- to Rs.21,00,000/- which would carry

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.