Madras High Court

Jaithun Beevi vs Natarajan on 2 September, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R.Hemalatha

                                                                                      CMA.No.1431 of 2024


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 02.09.2024

                                                           CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

                                                     C.M.A.No.1431 of 2024

                     1. Jaithun Beevi
                     2. Kasim @ Mohammed Kasim
                     3. Dhameen Ansari                                                ... Appellants

                                                              vs.
                     1. Natarajan

                     2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                        New No.1134, Old No.40-45,
                        Silingi Building,
                        Greams Road,
                        Chennai - 600 006.                                          ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 06.08.2022 in
                     M.C.O.P.2023/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V
                     Court of Small Causes, Chennai.


                                    For Appellants       : Mr.R.Navaneetha Krishnan

                                    For R2               : Mr.P.Sankara Narayanan




                                                       JUDGMENT

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

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.2023/2017 on the

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

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 3 of

M.A.C.T. Rules, seeking compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- for the death of

one Abdullah (husband of the 1st claimant and father of the claimants 2

and 3) in a road accident which happened on 04.01.2017.

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

On 04.01.2017, Abdullah (deceased) was travelling as a pillion

rider in a two-wheeler bearing Registration number TN-19-J-9492 on

E.C.R.Road. When he was nearing Muhaiyur bus stop, Kancheepuram

district, an Auto bearing Registration number TN-32-Q-5356 driven by its

driver rashly and negligently, hit the two wheeler, as a result of which,

Abdullah sustained injuries all over his body. He was immediately rushed

to CMC Government Hospital, from where he was referred to Madras

Government Medical College Hospital. However, he succumbed to

injuries on 25.02.2017.

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

the driver of the Auto bearing Registration number TN-32-Q-5356 was the

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

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

second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the

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

to him.

4. In the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle remained absent and

was set exparte. The second 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 part of the driver of the auto bearing

Registration number TN-32-Q-5356 and on the deceased Abdullah, in the

ratio 80:20. Since the driver of the Auto did not have a valid driving

licence on the date of accident, the Tribunal directed the second

respondent, the United India Insurance company Limited to pay

compensation of Rs.10,71,200/- (80% of the total award) together with

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

of realisation, in the first instance and then recover the same from the

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

owner of the vehicle, vide, its orders dated 06.08.2022.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal and challenging 20% contributory negligence fastened on the

part of the deceased, the appellants / claimants have filed the present

appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Heard Mr.R.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr.P.Sankara Narayanan, learned counsel for the second

respondent.

8. Mr.R.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants contended that Abdulla (deceased) was travelling only as a

pillion rider in the two wheeler bearing Registration number TN-19-J-

9492. However, the Tribunal fastened 20% contributory negligence on the

part of the deceased since the driver of the two wheeler did not have a

valid driving licence on the date of accident. He further contended that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also inadequate. He therefore,

prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

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

9. Per contra, Mr.P.Sankara Narayanan, learned counsel

appearing for the second respondent, contended that the Award passed by

the Tribunal is based on well laid 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. He also contended that the Tribunal after properly

analysing the evidence on record, had rightly fastened contributory

negligence to the extent of 20% on the part of the deceased.

10. It is seen from the records that the Tribunal had fastened

negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto bearing Registration

number TN-32-Q-5356. The rider of the two wheeler did not have a valid

driving licence and therefore 20% of the negligence was fastened on the

part of the deceased. It is pertinent to point out that when the entire

negligence was on the part of the driver of the Auto, the Tribunal had

wrongly fastened 20% of the contributory negligence on the part of the

pillion rider, who had not in anyway contributed to the accident.

Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

11. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is

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

contended that Abdullah (deceased) was engaged in the business of buying

and selling Mats, earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. However, the

Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-

. It is pertinent to point out that the accident took place in the year 2017

and in the facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that fixing

notional monthly income of the deceased at 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 three 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 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.15,000/-

after adding 10% Future Prospects = Rs.16,500/- After 1/3 deduction = Rs.11,000/-

Loss of dependency :

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

= Rs.11,000/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.17,16,000/-

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

Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards Loss of Consortium, Loss

of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Transportation 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.18,71,000 (17,16,000 + 1,20,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 5,000 =

18,71,000) as shown in the following tabular column:

                                  S.No.             Head           Amount granted by this court
                                  1.        Loss of dependency            Rs.17,16,000/-
                                  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/-
                                  5.        Transportation                  Rs.5,000/-
                                  Total                          Rs.18,71,000/-