Madras High Court
Sakunthala vs K. Thangadurai on 21 October, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
CMA.No.595 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.595 of 2023
Sakunthala .... Appellant
vs.
1. K. Thangadurai
2. The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
B1, NTG Complex,
No.14, Rangaswamy Street,
West Tambaram, Chennai 45. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 31.07.2019 in
M.C.O.P.No.116/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mr.K. Varadha Kamaraj
R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mrs. C. Bhuvanasundari
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.116/2016 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District
Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee. She filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and Rule 3 of the MACT
Rules seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of her mother,
in a road accident that occurred on 14.07.2015.
2. According to the claimant, on 14.07.2015, Bagyammal (since
deceased) was walking along CTH Road, Ambattur and at about 8 a.m a
speeding Yamaha Bike bearing Registration Number TN 13 B 2993 hit
her resulting in her instantaneous death.
3. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of
the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration Number TN 13 B 2993,
was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured
with the second respondent, the Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited, Chennai, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In the Tribunal the owner of the motorcycle remained absent
and was set ex parte. 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 rider of the motorcycle bearing
Registration Number TN 13 B 2993, and directed the second respondent,
insurer of the said motorcycle, to pay compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- to the
claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal also held that the
liability of the Insurance Company and the owner of the motorcycle is
joint and several.
6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Heard Mr.K. Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mrs. C. Bhuvanasundari, learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent Insurance Company.
8. Mr.K. Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that the Tribunal had deducted 1/2 towards the
personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3. He therefore, prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
9. Per contra, Mrs. C. Bhuvanasundari, learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that
the claimant was aged 55 years and the deceased was aged 75 years. In
the circumstances, deduction of 1/2 towards the personal expenses of the
deceased cannot be said to be wrong. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal
of the present appeal.
10. The deceased, in the instant case, was aged 75 years and
according to the claimant, she was working as a servant maid earning a
sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed the notional monthly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- and deducted 1/2 towards her
personal expenses. It is pertinent to point out that the claimant is aged
about 55 years and therefore, deduction of 1/2 towards the personal
expenses of the deceased by the Tribunal cannot be said to be wrong.
The deceased was aged 75 years on the date of the accident and therefore,
she is not entitled to get future prospects as per the decision in National
Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC
601 and the proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 5 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.6,000/-
After 1/2 deduction = Rs.3,000/-
Loss of dependency
= Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 5
= Rs.1,80,000/-
In addition to that the claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- for '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).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.1. The enhanced amount under the different heads are
detailed hereunder:
S.No. Head Amount granted
by this court (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 1,80,000/-
2. Loss of consortium 40,000/-
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Total 2,50,000/-
This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
11. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.2,50,000/-.
iii. The appellant / claimant is directed to pay court fee for the
enhanced compensation amount, if any, within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order and the Registry is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.
iv. The second respondent, The Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited,Chennai, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (less the amount already deposited)
together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.116/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order/uploading of this order.
v. On such deposit being made, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw
the same after filing a proper petition for withdrawal.
vi. The claimant is not entitled to claim interest for the period of delay
of 137 days in filing this appeal, as per the orders of this Court
dated 21.02.2023 in C.M.P. No.15490 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
bga
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee
2. The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
B1, NTG Complex,
No.14, Rangaswamy Street,
West Tambaram, Chennai 45.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.HEMALATHA, J.
bga
21.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
