Madras High Court
Sathiabama vs Ramkumar on 19 October, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
CMA.No.2790 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.2790 of 2024
1.Sathiabama
2.Sathya ... Appellants
vs.
1.Ramkumar
2.M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Divisional Office – II (HUB),
104-A, Peramanoor 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
M.C.O.P.940 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Salem.
For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj
For R2 : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2790 of 2024
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.940 of 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.40,00,000/- for the death of one Selvaraj ( husband of
claimant 1 and father of claimant 2) in a road accident that occurred on
18.03.2023.
2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :
On 18.03.2023, Selvaraj (since deceased) was riding his two
wheeler bearing Registration Number TN-42-V-8705 on Coimbatore -
Kangeyam main road and at about 8.30 a.m., a speeding car bearing
Registration Number TN-66-Y-6167 came in the opposite direction and
hit the two wheeler driven by Selvaraj (deceased), resulting in his
instantaneous death.
3. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the car bearing Registration Number TN-66-Y-6167 was the
cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
second respondent, the United India 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 car remained absent and
was set ex parte. The second respondent, the United India 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 01.02.2024, fastened
negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing Registration Number
TN-66-Y-6167 and further held that the owner of the car and the insurer
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,05,000/- 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 Mr.S.P.Yuaraj, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent.
8. Mr.S.P.Yuaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would contend that the deceased was working as a security in a private
concern earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal
fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased only as Rs.10,000/-
including future prospects, which, according to him, is very meagre. He
therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation.
9. Per contra Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not be disturbed at this stage.
10. In the claim petition, it is contended that the deceased was
aged about 59 years and was working as a security 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.10,000/- including future prospects. 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, 10% is added towards future prospects of the deceased.
Since there are five dependents, 1/3rd of the deceased's income should be
deducted towards his personal expenses. The proper multiplier to be
adopted in the instant case is 9 as per the decision rendered in Sarla
Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Calculation
Notional Income = Rs.15,000/-
10% Future Prospects = Rs.16,500/-
After 1/3 deduction = Rs.11,000/-
Loss of dependency
= Rs.11,000/- x 12 x 9
= Rs.11,88,000/-
In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.88,000/- (44,000 x 2),
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). Thus, the claimants are
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,09,000/- ( 11,88,000 + 88,000 +
16,500 + 16,500 = 13,09,000) as shown in the following tabular column.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No. Head Amount granted
by this court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.11,88,000/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.88,000/-
(Rs.44,000/- x 2)
3. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
TOTAL Rs.13,09,000/-
11. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
to Rs.13,09,000/- 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.13,09,000/-.
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 United India Insurance Company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Limited, Salem, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount i.e., Rs.13,09,000/- (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.940 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.
v. On such deposit being made, the appellants / claimants are at liberty
to withdraw the same as per the orders passed by the Tribunal after
following due process of law. The ratio of apportionment made by
the Tribunal shall be kept intact.
vi. The appellants/claimants are not entitled to claim any interest for
the period of delay of 75 days in filing this appeal.
19.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Salem.
2.The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Divisional Officer – II (HUB),
104-A, Peramanoor Main Road,
Salem.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
R.HEMALATHA, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mtl
19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
