Madras High Court
Jose vs M.Balaji on 24 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.1142 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.1142 of 2024
1.Jose
S/o.Anthony Pillai
2.Selvarani
W/o.Jose
3.Maneesha
D/o.Jose
4.Manoj
S/o. Jose ... Appellants
Vs.
1.M.Balaji
S/o.Mani
2.P.Subramania Pillai
S/o.Parameswaran Pillai
3.National Insurance Company Ltd.,
rep. by its Branch Manager,
North Car Street, 1st Floor,
Anguvilas Building,
Near Head Post Office,
Nagercoil-1, Nagercoil Village,
Agateeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD) No.1142 of 2024
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to enhance the award amount in M.C.O.P.No.23 of
2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub
Court), Nagercoil, dated 11.12.2023.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Sankar Prakash
For R2 : No appearance
For R3 : Mr.N.S.Ramakrishnadoss
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Since the Tribunal's findings on negligence and liability are not
under challenge, the facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are
unnecessary for the disposal of this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that
though there is evidence on record that the deceased was working as a
fisherman, the Tribunal has fixed a meagre notional income of the
deceased and that the contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal on the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deceased at 10% is erroneous and is not based on the records, and hence
prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the third respondent, Insurance
Company, submitted that no documentary evidence was produced by the
appellants either to prove the avocation or the income of the deceased, and
normally, the Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, would
certify if a person is a fisherman, and hence, the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is
called for.
5. The points for consideration in the instant appeal are: (a) whether
the Tribunal's finding as regards the contributory negligence is justified;
and (b) whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable.
6. As regards the first point, it is seen that P.W.2, the eyewitness to
the occurrence, admitted before the Tribunal that the deceased did not
wear a helmet at the time of the accident. In view of the same, this Court
is of the view that the contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal on the
deceased cannot be faulted, as the learned counsel for the appellants is
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
unable to point out any infirmity in the fixation of contributory
negligence.
7. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is seen that the
accident took place in the year 2016. The claimants have not produced
any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and the income of the
deceased. However, considering the age (22) and avocation of the
deceased and the year of the accident, this Court is of the view that the
notional income can be fixed at Rs.14,000/- per month. The compensation
under the head loss 'loss of dependency' would be Rs.21,16,800/- [Rs.
14,000/- + 40% x 12 x 18 x 1/2].
8. The compensation under the other heads is just and reasonable.
Thus, the total compensation is modified as follows:
Sl. Heads Amount Amount Award
No awarded by the awarded by confirmed,
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
reduced
1 Loss of Dependency Rs.19,65,600/- Rs.21,16,800/- Enhanced
2 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed
3 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed
4 Loss of Filial Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 80,000/- Confirmed
Consortium to the first
and second claimants
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 Loss of Sibling Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 80,000/- Confirmed
Consortium to the third
and fourth claimants
Total Rs.21,55,600/- Rs.23,06,800/- Enhanced by
Rs.1,51,200/-
9. After deducting 10% contributory negligence, the third
respondent, Insurance Company, is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,76,120/-
[Rs.23,06,800 – Rs.2,30,680/-].
10. The third respondent, Insurance Company, is directed to deposit
the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,76,120/- together with interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, after
deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
11. On such deposit, the third and fourth appellants/third and fourth
claimants, who are the siblings of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.50,000/-
each, and the balance amount shall be shared equally by the first and
second appellants/first and second claimants, who are the parents of the
deceased.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. The appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares
along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already
withdrawn, if any, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal.
13. The appellants/claimants shall pay the court fee for the
enhanced amount, if any.
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs.
24.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
Copy To:
1.The Principal Sub Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
24.10.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
