Madras High Court

R.Prabakaran vs M.Gokulraj on 30 September, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R.Hemalatha

                                                                                 CMA.No.1477 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.1477 of 2024
                     1. R.Prabakaran
                     2. R.P.Jeni Priya                                            ... Appellants
                                                            vs.
                     1. M.Gokulraj
                     2. N.Rajendran
                     3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
                        Branch Office at M.L.Complex,
                        1st Floor, 10/11, Church Road,
                        Dharapuram,
                       Tiruppur District - 638 656.

                     4. M.Kalpana                                                ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 25.04.2023 in
                     M.C.O.P.542/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
                     Special District Court, Erode.

                                    For Appellants     : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

                                    For R3             : Mr.S.Dhakshinamoorthy




                     1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      CMA.No.1477 of 2024




                                                   JUDGMENT

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.542/2018 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode. They filed the claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking

compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one P.Santhakumari (wife

of the first claimant and mother of the second claimant) in a road accident

that occurred on 06.02.2018.

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

On 06.02.2018, P.Santhakumari (deceased) was travelling as a

pillion rider in a two-wheeler bearing Registration number TN 33 Q 7311

on Karur - Erode main road. When she was nearing Murugan Savadi

junction, a speeding van bearing Registration number TN 78 A 3967, hit

the two wheeler, as a result of which, P.Santhakumari fell down and

sustained injuries all over her body. She was immediately rushed to

Government Hospital, Erode. However, she succumbed to injuries on

09.02.2018.

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

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

the driver of the van bearing Registration number TN 78 A 3967 was the

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

third respondent, the New India Assurance Company Limited, the owner

and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to

them.

4. In the Tribunal, the driver and the owner of the vehicle

remained absent and were set exparte. The third respondent 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 driver of the van bearing Registration number TN 78 A

3967 and directed the third respondent, the New India Assurance

Company Limited to pay compensation of Rs.16,49,511/- together with

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

of realisation. The Tribunal also held that the liability of the owner of the

vehicle and the insurer is joint and several.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

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

Tribunal, the appellants / claimants have filed the present appeal under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Heard Mr.R.Nalliyappan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mr.S.Dhakshinamoorthy, learned counsel for the third

respondent.

8. Mr.R.Nalliyappan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/claimants contended that the deceased P.Santhakumari, aged

50 years was employed as a Anganwadi worker in Tamil Nadu Integrated

Children Development Project, Erode, earning a sum of Rs.13,390/- per

month. However, the Tribunal had fixed a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/-

including future prospects, as her monthly notional income. He, therefore

prayed for enhancing the notional income of the deceased.

9. Per contra Mr.S.Dhakshinamoorthy, learned counsel

appearing for the third 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

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

be disturbed at this stage.

10. This Court in order to ascertain the income of the deceased,

directed the Registry to issue summons to the Child Development

Planning Office, Modakurichi Taluk, Erode to produce the Salary

Certificate of P.Santhakumari who was working in Anganvadi.

Accordingly, Ms.G.Bhuvaneshwari, Child Development Project Officer,

Modakkurichi Block, Erode is present before this Court today and she

produced the pay certificate of P.Santhakumari for the period from

January 2017 - February 2018.

11. A perusal of the pay certificate shows that P.Santhkumari

(deceased) was receiving a sum of Rs.13,390/- before her death.

Therefore, the same is taken as monthly income of the deceased for the

purpose of computing loss of dependency. 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, 25% 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

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

proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 13 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.13,390/-

after adding 25% Future Prospects = Rs.16,738/-

After 1/3 deduction = Rs.11,158/-

Loss of dependency:

= Rs.11,158/- x 12 x 13

= Rs.17,40,648/-

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.80,000/- (40,000/-x2),

Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards 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). The appellants, claimants

are also entitled to a sum of Rs.84,783/- towards medical expenses. Thus,

the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,35,431/-

(17,40,648 + 80,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 84,783 = 19,35,431) 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. 17,40,648 /-
                                  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.            Medical Expenses                    Rs.84,783/-
                                                                   Total Rs.19,35,431/-