Madras High Court

Sudhagar vs Manikandan on 23 October, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R. Hemalatha

                                                                                  CMA.No.982 of 2024


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 23.10.2024

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                                     C.M.A.No.982 of 2024

                     1.Sudhagar

                     2.Minor. Bhuvanesh                                     ... Appellants
                     (Minor represented by his father and next
                     friend first appellant)
                                                         vs.
                     1.Manikandan

                     2.The Legal Manager,
                     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,
                     No.1/D, Chottabai Street,
                     Opposite to Land Mark Book Stall,
                     Nungambakkam, Chennai - 6.                     ... Respondents



                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 03.08.2022 in
                     M.C.O.P.1376 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
                     Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.


                                    For Appellants      : Ms.A.Subadra
                                    For R2              : Mr.A.Vinothraj




                     1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      CMA.No.982 of 2024




                                                   JUDGMENT

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.1376 of 2017 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai. 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 Priya @

Chinnapillai ( wife of claimant 1 and mother of claimant 2) in a road

accident that occurred on 17.10.2017.

2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :

On 17.10.2017, Priya @ Chinnapillai (since deceased) was

travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration Number

TN-32-D-1694 on Nathamoor - Tirukoilur road and at about 12.15 p.m., a

speeding pickup van bearing Registration Number TN-15-2658 came in

the opposite direction and hit the two wheeler, as a result of which, Priya

@ Chinnapillai died on spot. On the date of accident, Priya was pregnant

for twenty weeks.

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

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

the driver of the pickup van bearing Registration Number TN-15-2658

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

with the second respondent, the ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company Limited, the owner of the vehicle and the insurer are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation to them.

4. In the Tribunal the owner of the van remained absent and

was set ex parte. The second respondent, the ICICI Lombard General

Insurance Company Limited resisted the claim petition on all the grounds

available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. The Tribunal, vide its orders dated 03.08.2022, fastened

negligence on the part of the driver of the pickup van bearing Registration

Number TN-15-2658 and further held that the owner of the vehicle and the

insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of

Rs.27,40,200/- to the appellants (claimants) together with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

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

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, 1988.

7. Heard Ms.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mr.A.Vinothraj, learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent.

8. Ms.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would contend that the deceased was a tailor by profession earning a sum

of Rs.500/- per day. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly

income of the deceased only as Rs.12,000/-, which, according to her, is

very meagre. She therefore, prayed for enhancement of the notional

monthly income of the deceased.

9. Per contra Mr.A.Vinothraj, learned counsel appearing for the

second respondent contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal is

based on the well laid down principles of law which were in vogue at the

time of passing of the order and therefore, the same need not be disturbed

at this stage.

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

10. In the claim petition, it is contended that the deceased was

aged about 21 years and was a tailor by profession earning a sum of

Rs.500/- per day. In the absence of satisfactory income proof, the Tribunal

fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/-.

Considering the age of the victim and the year of the accident, this Court

is of the opinion that fixing notional monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.15,000/- 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 two dependents, 1/3rd of the

deceased's income should be deducted towards her personal expenses. The

proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 18 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.15,000/-

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

40% Future Prospects = Rs.21,000/-

After 1/3 deduction = Rs.14,000/-

Loss of dependency

= Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 18

= Rs.30,24,000/-

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.80,000/- (40,000 x 2),

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). Thus, the claimants are

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.33,34,000/- ( 30,24,000 + 80,000 +

15,000 + 15,000 + 2,00,000 = 33,34,000) as shown in the following

tabular column.

                                       S.No.               Head             Amount granted
                                                                             by this court
                                  1.           Loss of dependency           Rs.30,24,000 /-



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



                                       S.No.                Head                 Amount granted
                                                                                  by this court
                                  2.           Loss of consortium                   Rs.80,000/-
                                               (Rs.40,000/- x 2)
                                  3.           Funeral expenses                     Rs.15,000/-
                                  4.           Loss of Estate                       Rs.15,000/-
                                  5.           Death of child in mother's          Rs.2,00,000/-
                                               womb
                                                     TOTAL                        Rs.33,34,000/-

11. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

to Rs.33,34,000/- which would carry interest at the rate of 7.5% 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.33,34,000/-.

iii. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay the 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 ICICI Lombard General Insurance

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

Company Limited, Chennai, is directed to deposit the enhanced

compensation amount i.e., Rs.33,34,000/- (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 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.1376 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

v. Apportionment :

The first claimant is at liberty to withdraw his share after following

due process of law :

                                   1st claimant / Husband           Rs.16,67,000/-
                                                                    (with interest and costs)
                                   2nd claimant / Son               Rs.16,67,000/-

vi. The share of the minor second claimant is directed to be deposited

in any one of the Nationalised Bank till he attains majority.

vii.The appellants / claimants are not entitled to claim any interest for

the period of delay of 292 days in filing this appeal.

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

23.10.2024

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mtl

To

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

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

Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, No.1/D, Chottabai Street, Opposite to Land Mark Book Stall, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 6.