Madras High Court
Rubia Devi vs S.Venkatesan on 28 October, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
CMA.No.1509 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.1509 of 2024
1. Rubia Devi
2. Muthulingam ... Appellants
vs.
1. S.Venkatesan
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Chennai Regional Office,
Motor Third Party Cell,
No.232, NSC Bose Road,
Bombay Mutual Building,
6th Floor, Chennai - 600 001. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award, dated 07.03.2023 in
M.C.O.P.5035/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III
Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Ms.S.R.Suga
For R2 : Mrs.S.R.Sumathy
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1509 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the dismissal of the claim petition in
M.C.O.P.5035/2018, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
2. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.5035/2018 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court,
Chennai. They filed the claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death
of their son M.Muralidharan, in a road accident that took place on
22.02.2018.
3. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :
On 22.02.2018, M.Muralidharan (deceased) was riding a two
wheeler bearing Registration number TN-12-V-7967 on Puzhal -
Tambaram Bypass road and at about 7.45 hours, a speeding lorry bearing
Registration number TN-28-AF-3638 was going ahead of him. The driver
of the lorry applied sudden brake, as a result of which, Muralidharan hit
the lorry and died on spot.
4. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the lorry was the cause of the accident and that since the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the New India Assurance
Company Limited, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to them.
5. In the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry 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.
6. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record fastened
negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler M.Muralidharan
(deceased) and dismissed the entire claim petition, vide its orders dated
07.03.2023.
7. Heard Ms.S.R.Suga, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mrs.S.R.Sumathy, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
8.Negligence:
8.1. In order to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
lorry, the claimants have examined one R.Senthil kumar (P.W.2), eye
witness to the occurrence, who had spoken about the manner of accident.
His evidence is that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent. Nothing
useful was suggested to him during the course of cross examination to
discredit or disbelieve his version.
8.2. A perusal of the FIR (Ex.P1) shows that M.Muralidharan
(deceased) hit a lorry, which was parked on the left hand side of the road.
It is pertinent to point out that the road on which the accident took place is
a four way lane. There is nothing on record to show that the place where
the lorry was parked was earmarked for parking vehicles. The referred
charge sheet filed against the deceased does not speak about this.
Moreover, it is not shown that the lorry was parked with an indicator. In
the circumstances, the Tribunal was wrong in dismissing the claim petition
by fastening negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler. It is
pertinent to point out that the criminal court records are not binding on the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal has to assess the
evidence independently. In the instant case, the eyewitness account is clear
as to the manner of the accident and hence negligence is fastened on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
part of the driver of the lorry.
9. Quantum:
According to the claimants, the deceased aged 20 years, was a
student, studying II year B.Sc., (AME) in Hindustan Information
Technology, Padapai, Kancheepuram District.
10. In Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others reported
in 2013 (2) TN MAC 358, the Hon'ble Supreme Court fixed the notional
income of a minor child as Rs.30,000/- per annum and granted a sum of
Rs.50,000/- under the other conventional heads. The accident in Kishan
Gopal and another vs. Lala and others (cited supra) happened in the year
1992. In the present case, considering the passage of time and the age of
the victim, fixing Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased
would meet the ends of justice. The proper multiplier to be adopted in the
instant case is 18, as per the decision in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
Calculation for loss of dependency is worked out here under:
Calculation :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Notional Income = Rs.9,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,08,000/-
Loss of dependency :
= Rs.1,08,000/- x 18
= Rs.19,44,000/-
In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.80,000/- (40,000 x 2),
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards "loss of consortium, funeral expenses
and loss of estate" 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.20,54,000/- (19,44,000 +
80,000 +15,000 +15,000 = 20,54,000) as shown in the following tabular
column:
S.No. Head Amount granted
by this court (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 19,44,000/-
2. Loss of consortium 80,000/-
(40,000 X 2)
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Total 20,54,000/-
11. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
ii. The orders dated 07.03.2023 in M.C.O.P.5035/2018 on the file of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes,
Chennai, is set aside.
iii. The appellants / claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.20,54,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
iv. The second respondent, the New India Assurance Company
Limited, is directed to deposit the compensation amount i.e.,
Rs.20,54,000/- 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
to the credit of M.C.O.P.5035/2018 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Cause, Chennai.
v. Apportionment :
claimant 1 / Mother Rs.10,54,000/-
(with interest and costs)
claimant 2 / Father Rs.10,00,000/-
vi. The claimants 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 101 days in filing this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
vum
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
R.HEMALATHA, J.
vum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
