Madras High Court
D.Sivaprakash vs S.Murugan on 11 November, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
D.Sivaprakash
S/o Late Deivasigamani ... Appellant
Vs.
1. S.Murugan,
S/o Sekar
2. K.Somasundaram,
S/o Kuppusamy Gounder
3. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office at No.5, Big Bazaar Street,
Dharmapuram,
Tiruppur District - 638 656
4. M.P.Ponnusamy,
S/o Periya Gounder
5. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office at No2/117, R.S.Road,
Chennimalai, Erode - 638 051
(4th and 5th respondents impleaded
as per order passed in M.P.No.732/2017 dated 04.12.2017
and order passed in M.P.No.896/2017 dated 21.12.2017) ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/8
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
Prayer : The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 19 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2017
dated 19.08.20121 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special
District Court) at Erode.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Naresh Kumar
For Respondents : No appearance for R1,R2 & R4
Mr.D.Bhaskaran for R3 & R5
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J. Nisha Banu, J)
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant for
enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated
19.08.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (Special District Court) at Erode.
2.The case of the claimant in the claim petition is that on 11.10.2016 at
about 04.00 p.m., the deceased Sivakami was traveling in Maruti 800 Car,
bearing Regn.No.TN30.D.0910 which was driven by the claimant on
Chennimalai to Perundurai Road from north to south direction in slow and
caution manner. While they were proceedings near 1010 Colony pirivu in front
of KSB Bakery, a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 42 V 8850 was
parked at no parking place in the middle of the road without adhering to traffic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rules and regulations. Due to which, the Maruti car dashed from behind the
TATA Ace vehicle and the deceased sustained grievous injuries on the head,
face and left leg as she was seated beside the claimant. Immediately, the
deceased was taken to Care 24 Medical Centre and Hospital and admitted in
ICU ward where she died at 10.50 p.m. due to her head injuries. The accident
had occurred only due to the negligent of the 1st respondent driver of TATA
Ace vehicle. Hence, the claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2017 before the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Special District Court) at Erode, claiming a
sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation for the death of his mother,
O.P.Sivakami.
3. The 1st respondent is the driver and the 2nd respondent is the owner
of said TATA Ace. They remained absent and thus, they were set exparte
before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of
both, driver of the Maruti car and the driver of TATA Ace and fixed 60%
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi car/ appellant
herein and 40% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the TATA
Ace and awarded a total compensation of Rs.56,37,531/- and deducting 60%
towards contributory negligence, i.e., Rs.33,82,519/-, awarded a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.22,55,012/- to the claimant with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of
the petition till the date of deposit and costs. The Tribunal has ordered that the
3rd respondent/insurer is liable to pay the said Rs.22,55,012/- to the claimant
within a month.
5. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant has come out with the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would state
that the Tribunal erred in finding that the appellant herein/claimant was
negligent to the extent of 60%. He would state that the accident took place only
due to the negligence of the driver of TATA Ace Van bearing Reg.No.TN 42 V
8850 who had parked the van in such a manner endangering the safety of the
road users and the Tribunal has erroneously fixed only 40% negligence on the
part of the driver of TATA Ace Van as the entire negligence is on the part of the
driver of the said Van. Learned counsel would further state that the Tribunal
failed to consider the income of the deceased from the agricultural lands and
further, the deduction of 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased is not
proper. The Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/3rd towards personal
expenses of the deceased. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent/Insurance Company contended that the TATA Ace was parked on
the eastern side on the mud road facing south with the danger light on the back
side. The claimant /appellant had drove the Maruthi Car TN 30D0910 from
north to south, in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed and on
account of the negligent and rash driving of the appellant, he could not control
the car and dashed on the right back side of TATA ace. The appellant, having
committed the accident and caused the death of his mother, is not entitled to
any compensation. Hence, he would pray to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
3rd respondent/Insurance Company and perused the entire materials available
on record.
9. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal mainly questioning the
quantum and negligence of the award passed by the Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal, , after deducting 60% contributory negligence on the
part of the appellant/claimant, has awarded a sum of Rs.22,55,012/- as
compensation to the claimant. It is not in dispute that the deceased was
working as Headmistress in Kasturba Aided Elementary School Uppiplayam,
Chennimalai. Though the claimant claimed that the deceased was earning
more than Rs.35,000/- per month as income from the agricultural land, the
Tribunal, only on considering the oral and documentary evidence, has given a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
finding that the deceased was not earning any income from the agricultural,
even though, agricultural lands are in the name of the deceased. Thus, the
Tribunal has taken only the salary of the deceased and adding 30% towards
future prospects, fixed a sum of Rs.8,36,073/- as her income per annum. Since
the dependent of the deceased is her only son, the appellant/claimant, the
Tribunal deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses. Further, the aged of the
deceased was 46 years at the time of accident, therefore, applying the multiplier
13, the Tribunal, fixed a sum of Rs.54,34,468/- towards loss of income of the
deceased, which in our opinion is fair and reasonable and needs no interference
by this Court.
11. Insofar as the contributory negligence is concerned, it is seen from
the materials available on record that the deceased sustained grievous injuries
on head, face and left leg. She died on the same date of accident due to head
injuries. The TATA Ace Van was parked on the eastern side mud road facing
south with danger light on, on the back side. If the appellant/claimant would
have driven the Maruthi car in a normal speed, he would have noticed the same
and would have avoided dashing against the car. Only on account of high
speed, negligent and rash driving of the appellant/claimant, the car dashed on
the right back side of TATA Ace Van and moreover, the impact was heavy and
the Maruthi car was completely damaged. Thus, the Tribunal fixed 60%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the maruthi car, the
appellant herein. We are of the opinion that there is no error in the said finding
of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed The
judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal in MC.O.P.No.64/2017 dated
19.08.2021 is confirmed. No costs.
(J.N.B., J.) (R.S.V., J.)
11.11.2024
vsi
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special District Court)
at Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
vsi
11.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
