Madras High Court
Krishnaveni vs Nigal on 12 August, 2024
2024:MHC:3055
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30 / 07 / 2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 12 / 08 / 2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
1.Krishnaveni
2.Indumathi
3.Prabudeva ... Appellants / Petitioners
Versus
1.Nigal
(R-1 is given up since he was set
ex-parte in lower Court)
2.The Branch Manager
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.89, Vivyn Plaza, 1st Floor,
100 Feet Road, Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the award dated 20.02.2018 in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.215 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
Tribunal / II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Sreedhar
For Respondent-1 : Set Ex-parte
For Respondent-2 : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari
JUDGMENT
Dissatisfied with the Award dated February 20, 2018, passed by
the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / II Additional District Judge,
Puducherry' [henceforth 'Tribunal'] in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.215 of 2016, the
petitioners therein have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal praying to
enhance the award amount awarded by the Tribunal.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred
to as per their rank before the Tribunal.
Petitioners' case
3.On January 17, 2016, at about 08.45 p.m., the first petitioner's
son namely Murali, was travelling as a pillion rider in the Hero Honda
Passion Pro motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CG-1955 driven by
one Ajith from Manaveli Road, Ariyankuppam Police Station, Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
While they were crossing the Puducherry to Cuddalore Main Road from east
to west direction, the first respondent's Yamaha Ray motorcycle bearing
Registration No.PY-01-CJ-5976 driven by one Mathankumar with two pillion
riders was approaching from north to south direction, in a rash and negligent
manner. It collided with the motorcycle on which Murali was travelling
leading to an accident and thereby, Murali sustained injuries and died. The
first petitioner is the deceased - Murali's mother while the second and third
petitioners are siblings of the deceased - Murali.
3.1.According to the petitioners, prior to the accident, the
deceased - Murali was working as a Car Tinkerer and thereby, earned a sum
of Rs.20,000/- per month. The first respondent is the owner of the Yamaha
Ray motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CJ-5976. The second
respondent is the insurer of the first respondent's motorcycle. The rider of the
first respondent's motorcycle is responsible for the accident. Therefore, the
respondents 1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the petitioners had filed a claim petition seeking compensation
of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
1st Respondent's case
4.The first respondent, who is the owner of the Yamaha Ray
motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CJ-5976, remained absent and was
set ex-parte before the Tribunal.
2nd Respondent's case
5.The second respondent / Insurance Company filed a counter
wherein, they denied the manner of accident as alleged by the appellants /
petitioners. According to the second respondent, the deceased - Murali was
riding the motorcycle in an inebriated mood with two other pillion riders and
suddenly crossed the road in a rash and negligent manner, thus inviting the
accident. Furthermore, the first respondent also violated the policy conditions.
Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners and the first respondent alone is responsible for compensation, if
any awarded. The second respondent also denied the age, occupation and
monthly income of the deceased and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
6.At trial, the third petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and the
rider of the motorcycle, namely Ajith @ Manigandan was examined as P.W.2
and one Balachandar, the alleged employer of the deceased - Murali was
examined as P.W.3 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.12 were marked on the side of the
petitioners. Further, Ex-X.1 – Salary Certificate was marked through P.W.3.
On the side of the respondents, three witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to
R.W.3. and Ex-R.1 – Insurance Policy was marked.
Findings of the Tribunal
7.The Tribunal after considering the evidence and materials
available on record, came to the conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle
bearing Registration No. PY-01-CJ-5976 belonging to the first respondent
was responsible for the accident. Since the first respondent's vehicle was
insured with the second respondent at the time of accident, the Tribunal found
that both respondents are jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Regarding quantum of compensation, though the petitioners contended that
the deceased was working under P.W.3 and earned a sum of Rs.650/- per day,
the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex-X.1 – Salary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
Certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased would have
earned a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal applied 40% future
prospects and adopted a multiplier of 18 and deducted 50% as personal
expenses of the deceased and arrived at a sum of Rs.9,07,200/- as
compensation under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.75,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection' and Rs.15,000/- each
under the heads 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate'. Thus, the Tribunal
totally awarded a sum of Rs.10,12,200/- as compensation to the petitioners.
8.Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioners
have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
Arguments
9.Learned Counsel for the appellants / petitioners has submitted
that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex-X.1 –
Salary Certificate in the right manner. On the contrary, the Tribunal has taken
a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income, which is on the lower side.
The learned Counsel further submitted that the deceased - Murali would have
earned at least a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Accordingly, she prayed to
allow the appeal and thereby, enhance the award amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
10.Learned Counsel for the second respondent invited attention
of this Court to column Nos.4 and 17 of the claim petition and contended that
the petitioners, in column No.4, have stated that the deceased was working as
a Banner Designing Worker. However, in column No.17, they have pleaded
that the deceased was a Car Tinkering Worker and thereby, earned a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month. The third petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1,
deposed that the deceased was a Car Tinkering Worker. On the contrary, P.W.3
deposed that the deceased was working as Banner Designer under him for
past five years and earned a sum of Rs.650/- per day as daily wages.
However, P.W.3 did not file any documents to support his evidence except
Ex-X.1–Salary Certificate. In view of the contrary evidence, the Tribunal
disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 and fixed notional income at Rs.6,000/- per
month. There is no warrant to interfere with the said findings. Accordingly,
the learned counsel prayed to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
Discussion and Decision
11.This Court has considered the submissions made on either
side and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
12.The appellants / petitioners filed this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal seeking an enhancement of compensation. The second respondent /
Insurance Company has not filed any appeal / cross objection. Hence, there is
no need to delve into the facts pertaining to the manner of accident. The only
concern here is the quantum of compensation.
13.Admittedly, the petitioners pleaded contradictory statements
regarding avocation of the deceased. P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was
engaged in Car Tinkering work. Per contra, the petitioners' side examined one
Balachandar as P.W.3, who testified that the deceased was working under him
as Banner Designing Worker, and earned a sum of Rs.650/- per day as daily
wages. In view of the contradictory statements regarding avocation of the
deceased, the evidence of P.W.3 requires corroboration. P.W.3 did not produce
any documents to corroborate his own evidence and Ex-X.1 - Salary
Certificate issued by him. In the absence of corroboration, this Court is of the
view that the evidence of P.W.3 is not credible. Accordingly, this Court rejects
the evidence of P.W.3 and the Salary Certificate marked as Ex-X.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
14.At the time of accident, the deceased was a Bachelor aged 23
years old. According to the petitioners, they were dependent solely on the
income of the deceased since the first petitioner's husband i.e., the father of
the deceased - Murali, passed away on December 27, 2015. The death
certificate of husband of the first petitioner is marked as Ex-P.6.
15.Considering the age of the deceased, year of the accident, cost
of living and price index prevailing at the time of accident, this Court is of the
view that the deceased - Murali would have earned a sum of Rs.12,000/- per
month. Applying 40% increase for future prospects and after deducting 50%
as his personal expenses, and by adopting multiplier of 18 as per the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others [2017 (16) SCC 680] and Sarla Verma &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121], this Court
arrives at a sum of Rs.18,14,400/- as compensation under the head 'loss of
income'.
16.The first petitioner is the mother and the second and third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
petitioners are the siblings of the deceased. The second and third petitioners
were unmarried at the time of death of the deceased. Therefore, the second
and third petitioners could be considered as 'dependents' of the deceased.
Accordingly, the first petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards
filial consortium and the second and third petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. The petitioners are also
entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and another
sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
17.Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to get enhanced
compensation of Rs.19,64,400/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Sixty Four
Thousand Four Hundred only) from the second respondent / Insurance
Company in the following manner:
S.No. Head Amount Rs.
1 Loss of Income Rs.18,14,400.00
2 Loss of Parental Consortium to the 1st petitioner Rs.40,000.00
3 Loss of love and affection to 2nd and 3rd petitioners Rs.80,000.00
4 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000.00
5 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000.00
Total Rs.19,64,400.00
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
Conclusion
18.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal viz., Rs.10,12,200/- is
hereby enhanced to Rs.19,64,400/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Sixty Four
Thousand Four Hundred only). The second respondent / Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit, less the amount if any already deposited to the credit of
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.215 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, within a period of eight (8) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Upon such deposit, the
first petitioner is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- along with
interest, second and third petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,32,200/-
each, along with interest by making necessary application before the
Tribunal. The deficit court fee, if any, shall be paid by the appellants /
petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
12 / 08 / 2024
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking order
TK
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
II Additional District Judge
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN
CMA NO.771 OF 2022
12 / 08 / 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
