Madras High Court

M.Shanmugam vs S.Ganasekaran on 18 October, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R.Hemalatha

                                                                                     CMA.No.976 of 2024


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 18.10.2024

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

                                                     C.M.A.No.976 of 2024

                     1. M.Shanmugam
                     2. S.Sakthivel - Minor
                     3. Bhavani - Minor                                              ... Appellants
                     (Minor appellants 2 and 3 are rep. by their
                     father & natural guardian Mr.M.Shanmugam)
                                                         vs.
                     1. S.Ganasekaran

                     2. The Manager,
                        Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                        No.6, 4th Floor, Haddows Road,
                        Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.                           ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 27.09.2023 in
                     M.C.O.P.3803/2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II
                     Small Causes Court, Chennai.

                                    For Appellants      : Mr.R.Dinesh Kumar

                                    For R2              : Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan




                     1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      CMA.No.976 of 2024


                                                   JUDGMENT

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.3803/2019 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. They filed the claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rule 3 of M.A.C.T.

Rules seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of one

Bakkiyalakshmi (wife of the first claimant and mother of the claimants 2

and 3) in a road accident that occurred on 27.04.2019.

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

On 27.04.2019, Bakkiyalakshmi (deceased) was walking along

Pudupakkam road and at about 7.30 a.m., when she was nearing Standard

fire godown, a speeding auto bearing Registration number TN-14-H-5816

came in the opposite direction and hit her, as a result of which, she

sustained injuries all over her body. She was immediately rushed to

Chettinadu hospital from where she was referred to Rajiv Gandhi

Government General Hospital, Chennai. However, she succumbed to

injuries on 28.04.2019.

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

the driver of the auto bearing Registration number TN-14-H-5816 was the

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

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

second respondent, the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the

owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation

to them.

4. In the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle remained absent and

was set exparte. The second respondent, Insurance company 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, fastened

negligence on the part of the driver of the auto bearing Registration

number TN-14-H-5816 and directed the second respondent, Insurance

company to pay compensation of Rs.19,65,000/- 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 27.09.2023. The Tribunal also held that

the liability of the owner of the auto and the insurer is joint and several.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

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

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

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Heard Mr.R.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan, learned counsel for the second

respondent.

8. Mr.R.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/claimants contended that Bakkiyalakshmi (deceased), aged 40

years was a daily wager in a construction company, earning a sum of

Rs.600/- per day. However, the Tribunal had fixed a meagre sum of

Rs.12,000/- as her notional monthly income. He, therefore prayed for

enhancement of compensation.

9. Per contra Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing

for the second respondent, 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.

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

10. According to the claimants, Bakkiyalakshmi (deceased)

aged 40 years, was a labour in a construction company, earning a sum of

Rs.600 per day. In the absence of satisfactory income proof, the Tribunal

fixed the notional 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

notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- 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% is added towards future prospects of the deceased.

Since there are three dependents, 1/3rd of the deceased's income should be

deducted towards her personal expenses. The proper multiplier to be

adopted in the instant case is 15 as per the decision rendered in Sarla

Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported

in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Calculation :

Notional Income = Rs.14,000/-

after adding 25% Future Prospects = Rs.17,500/- After 1/3 deduction = Rs.11,667/-

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

Loss of dependency:

= Rs.11,667/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.21,00,060/-

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000/-x3),

Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards 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.22,50,060/- (21,00,060 + 1,20,000

+ 15,000 + 15,000 = 22,50,060) as shown in the following tabular column:

                                       S.No.                Head         Amount granted
                                                                          by this court
                                  1.            Loss of dependency        Rs. 21,00,060 /-
                                  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.22,50,060/-