Madras High Court
Saranya vs T.Senthilkumar on 28 October, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
CMA.No.1578 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.1578 of 2023
1. Saranya
2. Minor.Inba Ragav
Rep. by next friend / Natural Guardian /
Mother Saranya
3. Chitra
4. R.Varma
5. V.Prabakaran ... Appellants
vs.
1. T.Senthilkumar
2. M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
104 - A, Peramanur main road,
Peramanur, Salem. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 01.04.2022 in
M.C.O.P.263/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Salem.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Lokesh
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1578 of 2023
For R2 : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.263/2018 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem. They filed the claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking
compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the death of one Kumar (husband of
claimant 1; father of claimant 2; son of claimant 3 and 4; brother of
claimant 5) in a road accident that occurred on 12.11.2017.
2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :
On 12.11.2017, Kumar (deceased) was driving a car bearing
Registration number TN-27-J-9493 on Mangalapuram - Rasipuram main
road and at about 21.30 hours, when he was nearing Government Higher
Secondary School, Rasipuram, a speeding lorry bearing Registration
number TN-33-BJ-4434 hit the car, as a result of which, Kumar sustained
injuries all over his body. He was immediately rushed to Nuero
Foundation Hospital, Salem. However, he succumbed to injuries on
25.12.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the lorry bearing Registration number TN-33-BJ-4434 was
the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with
the second respondent, the United India 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 lorry bearing Registration
number TN-33-BJ-4434 and awarded compensation of Rs.24,71,000/-
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 01.04.2022. The
Tribunal also held that the liability of the owner of the lorry and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
insurer is joint and several.
6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the appellants / claimants have filed the present appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. Heard Mr.M.Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the second
respondent.
8. Mr.M.Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/claimants contended that Kumar (deceased), aged 29 years was
working as a Project Manager in a private concern, earning a sum of
Rs.25,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal had fixed his notional
monthly income as Rs.12,000/- including future prospects. He, therefore
prayed for enhancement of compensation.
9. Per contra, Mr.D.Venkatachalam, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disturbed at this stage.
10. According to the claimants, Kumar (deceased) aged 29
years, was working as a Project Manager in a private concern, earning a
sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. In the absence of satisfactory income
proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.12,000/- including future prospects. It is pertinent to point out that the
accident took place in the year 2017 and in the facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the opinion that fixing notional monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.16,000/- 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, 40% is added
towards future prospects of the deceased. Since there are four dependents,
1/4th of the deceased's income should be deducted towards his personal
expenses. The proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 17 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.16,000/-
after adding 40% Future Prospects = Rs.22,400/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
After 1/4 deduction = Rs.16,800/-
Loss of dependency:
= Rs.16,800/- x 12 x 17
= Rs.34,27,200/-
In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000/-x4),
Rs.5,22,160/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium,
medical expenses, 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.41,39,360/- (34,27,200 + 5,22,160 + 1,60,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 =
41,39,360) as shown in the following tabular column:
S.No. Head Amount granted
by this court
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 34,27,200 /-
2. Medical bills Rs.5,22,160/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 4)
4. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.41,39,360/-
11. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced to Rs.41,39,360/- that would carry interest at the rate of 7.5%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
per annum.
12. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.41,39,360/-.
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 liability of the owner of the lorry and the second respondent
(the United India Insurance Company Limited) is joint and several
and the second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount i.e., Rs.41,39,360/- (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 within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order /
uploading of this order to the credit of M.C.O.P.263/2018 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
v. Apportionment :
claimant 1 / wife Rs.11,39,360/-
(with interest and costs)
claimant 2 / minor son Rs.20,00,000/-
claimant 3 and 4 / Parents Rs.5,00,000/- each
vi. The share of the minor appellant is directed to be deposited in any
one of the Nationalised Bank till he attains majority. The claimants
/ appellants 1, 3 and 4 are at liberty to withdraw their respective
shares after following due process of law.
vii. The appellants/claimants are not entitled to claim any interest for
the period of delay of 229 days in filing this appeal.
28.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
vum
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Salem.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.HEMALATHA, J.
vum
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
