Madras High Court
Ponnusastha vs Mathaiyan on 7 August, 2024
C.M.A(MD)No.1084 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH
COURT
DATED :07.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1084 of 2017
1.Ponnusastha
2.Santhanamari Natchiyar
3.Subbulakshmi ... Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
1.Mathaiyan
2.The TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Peninsula Corporate Park,
Piramal Tower, 9th Floor,
Ganpatraokadam Marg,
Lower Parel,
Mumbai-400 013. ...Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree
made in MCOP NO.1129 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (IV Additional District Judge),
Tirunelveli, dated 30.11.2016.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For R2 :Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1 : No appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1084 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the
claimants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2016
made in MCOP NO.1129 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (IV Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli and
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2.The appellants filed the claim petition before the
Tribunal stating that on 27.07.2014 at about 05.30 a.m, when the
deceased viz., Iyyappan, was traveling in a car bearing
Registration No.TN-18-V-0335 from Kanchipuram to Chennai, a
lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-BZ-5829 was parked on the
middle of the road without any indicator, and hence, the car
collided on the back side of the lorry, which resulted in the
accident, and the deceased sustained fatal injuries.
3.According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 33
years at the time of the accident and had a degree in Bachelor of
Naturopathy and Yogic Science. He was working as an intern and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
earning Rs.13,000/- per month and had the capacity to earn more
money.
4.The first respondent, who is the owner of the lorry
remained ex-parte.
5.The second respondent/Insurance Company herein
opposed the claim petition on the ground that the driver of the
lorry did not have a valid driving licence and that the accident took
place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
car and hence, they are not liable to pay compensation.
6.To substantiate the case, the first claimant examined
himself as P.W.1 and another witness was examined as P.W.2 and
marked 27 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.27. The respondents, neither
examined any witness nor marked any documents.
7.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and
documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.32,16,000/- as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation payable by the second respondent. Aggrieved over
the same, the appellants/claimants filed the present appeal.
8.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the deceased had a degree in Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yogic
Science and was earning more than Rs.13,000/- at the relevant
point of time; that the appellants had produced the documents
before the Tribunal to show that the similarly placed persons were
earning Rs.82,000/- in the year 2024; and that the compensation
has to be enhanced.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that in the
absence of any evidence to prove the income of the deceased, the
Tribunal had correctly fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.
18,000/- ; that the Tribunal awarded an excess amount of Rs.
2,50,000/- for loss of love and affection; and hence, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions made on either side and also perused the materials
available on record.
11.The only question involved in the instant appeal is
whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
12.The Tribunal had taken into consideration Ex.P.21-
Government Order, which evidenced that the deceased was
earning Rs.13,000/- during the internship period and that he was
likely to earn a minimum of Rs.18,000/-, and had fixed the
notional income at Rs.18,000/-. The records produced by the
learned counsel for the appellants show that the salary of the
graduates, who were equally qualified as that of the deceased
pertains to the years 2022-2024. In any case, no such document
was filed before the Tribunal. This Court is of the view that
considering the fact that the deceased was a meritorious student
and was earning Rs.13,000/- as an intern, the notional income
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
could have been fixed on the higher side by the Tribunal.
However, taking into consideration the fact that a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love
and affection to the claimants, who are the parents and sister of the
deceased, which is on the higher side, and in excess of the amount
fixed in the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this
Court is of the view that the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable, and hence, no interference is called
for. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.
07.08.2024
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(IV Additional District Judge),
Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Ns
07.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
