Madras High Court
Kamaraj vs Mayakrishnan (Died) on 16 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.768 of 2006
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 16.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD).No.768 of 2006
and C.M.P(MD)No.1 of 2006
Kamaraj ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
1.Mayakrishnan (Died)
2.K.Seethalakshmi(Died)
3.Parameswari Selvam
4.Ponninselvi
5.Karthikeyan ...Respondents
(R3 to R5 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased sole respondent,
vide court order dated 24.09.2019 made in CMP.12060/16 in
CMA(MD)No.768 of 2006)
(A memo dated 10.09.2024 in USR No.33058 is recorded to the effect
that the name of the respondent 3 and 4 amended as per the order of this
Court dated 12.09.2024 made in CMA.(MD)No.768 of 2006 by SMJ)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicle Act against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005
made in MCOP.No.31 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Motor
Acciden Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Court), Tenkasi.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Nallathambi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 8
C.M.A.(MD)No.768 of 2006
For R3 to R5 : Mr.R.J.Karthick
JUDGMENT
The above appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle
challenging the finding on liability and the quantum of compensation
awarded to the injured claimant (since deceased).
2. A claim petition was filed by one Mayakrishnan stating that
while he was walking on a public road, a two-wheeler belonging to the
appellant ridden in a rash and negligent manner dashed him from behind
as a result of which, he had suffered grievous injuries all over the body.
3. The appellant filed a counter stating that the accident took place
only due to the negligence of the claimant; that he had sold the vehicle to
one Padmanathan, which is evidenced by an agreement dated
06.05.2001; and that in any case, the compensation claimed was
excessive.
4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined P.W.1 and P.W.2
and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The appellant marked 3 documents but
did not examine any witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place in the manner
alleged in the claim petition; and that since the record indicates that the
appellant is the owner of the two-wheeler, he is liable to pay
compensation. Admittedly, the vehicle was not insured.
6. During the pendency of this appeal, the claimant namely,
Mayakrishnan died and thereafter, his legal heirs were impleaded in this
appeal. Among them, one Seethalakshmi also died.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
agreement dated 06.05.2001 would show that the vehicle was transferred
in the name of Padmanathan and hence, the appellant cannot be held
liable; that in any case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
excessive; and prayed for setting aside the award.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 per contra
submitted that since the appellant was the registered owner as could be
seen from the Registration Certificate, the Tribunal was right in holding
that the appellant is liable to pay compensation; that the quantum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation awarded is reasonable; and prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
9. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions
made on either side and carefully perused the materials available on
record.
10. The points for consideration in the above appeal are as
follows:
i) Whether the finding on liability by the Tribunal is justified; and
ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is just and reasonable.
11. As regards the first point, the only defence taken by the
appellant is that he had sold the two-wheeler to one Padmanathan.
According to the appellant, the sale took place pursuant to an agreement
dated 06.05.2011, which is marked as Ex.R.1. In the registration
certificate, the appellant is shown as the owner of the vehicle. It is well
settled that the owner, whose name is in the Registration Certificate,
would be liable to pay compensation. In the instant case, the appellant's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
name is in the Registration Certificate and hence, he is liable to pay
compensation. If the appellant is able to show that the vehicle was
delivered to a third party, it is open to the appellant to independently
pursue any action that may be provided in law against the said third
party. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal
that the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle, is liable to pay
compensation cannot be faulted. The point No.1 is answered accordingly.
12. As regards the quantum of compensation, before the Tribunal
the claimant has established that he is a tailor and suffered two fractures.
As a result of the fractures, he was unable to work properly. P.W.2 had
deposed that because of the fractures suffered by the claimant, he could
not walk without a walking stick. The Doctor had also assessed the
disability at 40%.
13. The Tribunal had fixed the notional income at Rs.1,000/- and
had adopted a multiplier '20', which is erroneous. The Tribunal had also
not assessed the disability based on the evidence on record. Considering
the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the claimant had
not established that he had 100% functional disability due to the injuries
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
suffered in the accident. This Court is of the view that the functional
disability can be assessed at 40% based on the evidence of the Doctor
and the nature of avocation of the claimant. This Court is of the view
that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,000/- for the
accident took place in the year 2001 is meagre.This Court is of the view
that a sum of Rs.1500/- can be fixed as notional income and 40% has to
be added towards future prospects. Thus, the compensation under the
head loss of income has to be (1500 + 600 X 12 X 13 X 40/100) Rs.
1,31,040/-. The award of compensation under the other heads is just and
reasonable and hence confirmed. The details are as follows:
Sl. Heads of Amount Amount Award
No. Compensation awarded by awarded by confirmed
Tribunal this Court or
(Rs.) (Rs.) enhanced
or granted
1. Loss of income 2,40,000.00 1,31,040.00 Reduced
2. Transportation 5,000.00 5,000.00 Confirmed
3. Damages to 1,000.00 1,000.00 Confirmed
clothes
4. Extra Nourishment 25,000.00 25,000.00 Confirmed
5. Medical Expenses 90,000.00 90,000.00 Confirmed
6. Pain and suffering 25,000.00 25,000.00 Confirmed
7. Disability 10,000.00 10,000.00 Confirmed
8. Loss of earning 9,000.00 9,000.00 confirmed
capacity
Total : 4,05,000.00 2,96,040.00 Reduced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% is
excessive. The appellant is directed to deposit the modified
compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% less the amount already
deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to
withdraw the compensation amount by filing a suitable application.
15. In fine, this appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To,
1. The Additional Motor Acciden Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-
Court), Tenkasi.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
16.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
