Madras High Court

The Manager vs V.Gowri on 30 September, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R. Hemalatha

                                                                                CMA.No.1537 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 30.09.2024

                                                           CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                               C.M.A.No.1537 of 2024 and
                                                C.M.P.No.13212 of 2024

                     The Manager,
                     The National Insurance Company Limited,
                     Third Party Cell,
                     No.46, Moore Street,
                     III Floor, Chennai - 600 001.                              ... Appellant
                                                     vs.

                     1. V.Gowri
                     2. K.Venkatesan
                     3. V.Kavitha
                     4. K.Vaitheeswaran                                         ... Respondents



                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award, dated 17.07.2023 in
                     M.C.O.P.3728/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II
                     Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.


                                    For Appellant      :    Mr.R.Ravichandran

                                    For Respondents    :    Mr.R.S.Anandan




                     1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       CMA.No.1537 of 2024

                                                    JUDGMENT

The appellant, the Manager of National Insurance Company

Limited, Chennai is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.3728/2016 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. The claimants /

respondents 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the death of

one Dinesh (sons of the claimants 1 and 2 and brother of the third

claimant) in a road accident that occurred on 25.12.2015.

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

On 25.12.2015, Dinesh was travelling in a Maruti Alto car

bearing Registration number TN 01 AB 5139 on Chennai - Puducherry

road. When the car was nearing Marakkanam, the driver of the car drove

the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit a drum placed as median, as a

result of which, Dinesh fell down and sustained injuries all over his body.

He was immediately rushed to JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry. However,

he succumbed to injuries on the same day.

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

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

the driver of the car bearing Registration number TN 01 AB 5139 was the

cause of the accident and that since the owner of the car had insured his

vehicle with the appellant, the National 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 car remained absent and

was set ex parte. The appellant, Insurance Corporation 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 car bearing Registration

Number TN 01 AB 5139 and directed the appellant Insurance Company to

pay compensation of Rs.52,33,000/- to the claimants 1 and 3 together

with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition

till the date of realisation and dismissed the claim petition as against the

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

father of the deceased, vide its orders, dated 17.07.2023. The Tribunal

also held that the liability of the owner and the insurer is joint and several.

6. Aggrieved over the Award passed by the Tribunal, the

appellant / Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Heard Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant /

Insurance Company and Mr.R.S.Anandan, learned counsel for the

respondents 1 and 2 / claimants.

8. Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant /

Insurance Company contended that the deceased in the instant case died

as a bachelor. However, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd towards personal

expenses of the deceased. She also contended that when the deceased was

working in a private concern, 50% was added towards future prospects of

the deceased. She therefore prayed for setting aside the Award passed by

the Tribunal.

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

9. Per contra, Mr.R.S.Anandan, learned counsel appearing for

the claimants contended that relied on the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and contended

that if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother

would be considered to be a dependant and 50% would be treated as the

personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution

to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and

dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a

widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or

brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third

and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. He also

contended that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2)

TNMAC 601 and contended that since the deceased was employed in

TCS, 50% of his income should be added towards future prospects.

10. In the instant case, the deceased was working in Tata

Consultancy Services (in short TCS) as a system Engineer, earning a sum

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

of Rs.27,251/- per month. The Tribunal after deducting the amount of

Rs.3,584/- towards Provident Fund, Labour Welfare, Transport and TCS

well fare Trust, had take up by net pay of Rs.23,667/-. The deduction

made by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Hence, actual income of the

deceased which is Rs.27,251/- is taken up for loss of dependency. The

deceased died as a bachelor and the claimants in the instant case are

parents and sister of the diseased. The father of the deceased is alive and

therefore, 50% of the income should be deducted while computing loss of

dependency. The deceased was employed in TCS and therefore 50% is

added towards future prospects as per the decision in National Insurance

Co. vs Pranay sethi and others (cited supra). 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 :

Annual income of the deceased : Rs.3,27,012/- (27,251X12) 50% enhancement towards future prospects : Rs.1,63,506/-

Annual income : Rs.4,90,518/-

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

Income Tax Slab for Assessment Year 2016-2017 Upto Rs.2,50,000/- : Nil Rs.2,50,000 to Rs.5,00,000 - 10% (Rs.4,90,518 - Rs.2,50,000 = Rs.2,40,518 X10% :Rs.24,051.80/-

Annual income after deducting income tax : Rs.4,66,466.20/- (Rs. 4,90,518 - Rs. 24,051.80) Rs.4,66,466/-

(Round off)

Hence, fixing the annual income of the deceased as

Rs.4,66,466/- applying multiplier 18 and deducting 1/2 towards personal

expenses of the deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.41,98,194/-

Annual Notional Income = Rs..4,66,466/-

Rs.41,98,194/-

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000/-x3),

Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate,

and funeral expenses respectively as per the decision in National

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

Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others (cited supra). Thus, the

claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.43,48,194 (41,98,194

+ 1,20,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 = 43,48,194) as shown in the following

tabular column:

                                   S.No.            Head             Amount granted by this court
                                  1.        Loss of dependency              Rs.41,98,194/-
                                  2.        Loss of consortium              Rs.1,20,000/-
                                            (Rs.40,000/- x 3)
                                  3.        Funeral expenses                 Rs.15,000/-
                                  4.        Loss of Estate                   Rs.15,000/-
                                                             Total          Rs.43,48,194/-

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

down to Rs.43,48,194/- from Rs.52,33,000/- which would carry interest at

the rate of 7.5% per annum.