Madras High Court

Indhirani vs A.M.V. Jayaraman on 24 October, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R. Hemalatha

                                                                          CMA.No.1132 of 2024


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 24.10.2024

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                              C.M.A.No.1132 of 2024

                     1. Indhirani
                     2. Sridevi
                     3. Sridhar
                     4. Latha                                         .... Appellants

                                                       vs.

                     1. A.M.V. Jayaraman

                     2. United India Insurance Company Limited,
                        Divisional Office,
                        1171, Mutthiah Complex
                        Mettur Road, Erode.

                     3. Srinivasan

                     4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
                        CBO I Salem,
                        Siva Complex 2nd Floor,
                        22-C, Sarada College Main Road,
                        Salem                                           ... Respondents



                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 01.02.2024 in


                     1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 CMA.No.1132 of 2024


                     M.C.O.P.No.589/2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
                     Salem.


                                  For Appellants     : Mr.H. Manojin
                                  R1, R3 and R4      : No appearance
                                  For R2             : Mrs. R. Rathna Thara


                                                     JUDGMENT

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.589/2023 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem. They filed the

claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seeking

compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Vellaiyagounder

(husband of claimant 1; father of claimants 2 to 4) in a road accident that

occurred on 06.02.2023.

2. According to the claimants, on 06.02.2023, Vellaiyagounder

(since deceased) was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing

Registration Number TN-3-AD-3933 on Kollapatty branch road and at

about 8.30 a.m., a speeding bus bearing Registration Number TN-86-E-

5699 hit the two wheeler as a result of which Vellaiyagounder fell down

and died on the spot.

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

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

the driver of the bus bearing Registration Number TN-86-E-5699, was

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

the second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited,

Erode, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to them. The respondents 3 and 4 (owner and insurer of the

motorcycle) were also added as parties to the claim petition.

4. In the Tribunal the owners of the bus and the motorcycle

remained absent and were set ex parte. The second and fourth

respondents resisted the claim petition by filing their respective counters.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, fastened

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

Number TN-86-E-5699, and directed the second respondent, the insurer

of the said bus, to pay compensation of Rs.13,15,000/- to the claimants

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 bus is joint and several.

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

The claim against the respondents 3 and 4 was dismissed by the Tribunal.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the claimants have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. Heard Mr.H. Manojin, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Ms.R. Rathna Thara, learned counsel appearing for the

second respondent Insurance Company.

8. Mr.H. Manojin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants

contended that the deceased was doing catering business earning a sum

of Rs.50,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional

monthly income of the deceased only as Rs.10,000/- including future

prospects. He therefore prayed for enhancement of compensation.

9. Per contra, Ms.R. Rathna Thara, learned counsel appearing

for the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Award

passed by the Tribunal is based on the well laid down principles of law

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

which were in vogue at the time of passing of the order and therefore, the

same need not be disturbed in the present appeal.

10. Though it is contended that Vellaiyagounder (deceased)

was doing catering business earning a sum of Rs.50,000/-, no satisfactory

evidence was adduced by the claimants. The deceased, in the instant case,

was aged 47 years on the date of accident. Considering the year of

accident and the age of the deceased, this Court fixes the notional monthly

income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/-. 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 the claimants 2 to 4 are grown up son

and daughters of the deceased, 1/3 is deducted towards his personal

expenses. The proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 13 as

per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Calculation

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

Notional Income = Rs.18,000/-

25% Future Prospects = Rs.22,500/-

After 1/3 deduction = Rs.15,000/-

Loss of dependency

= Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.23,40,000/-

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,76,000/- (44,000 x 4),

Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- 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).

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                  23,40,000/-
                                  2.           Loss of consortium                   1,76,000/-
                                               (Rs.44,000/- x 4)
                                  3.           Funeral expenses                       16,500/-
                                  4.           Loss of Estate                         16,500/-
                                               Total                               25,49,000/-





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

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.25,49,000/-.

iii. The appellants / claimants are 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

draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.

iv. The second respondent, the United Insurance Company Limited,

Erode, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of