Madras High Court
Sagunthala vs A.Pradeep on 3 September, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
CMA.No.124 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.124 of 2022
1. Sagunthala
2. Minor Arul Prakash
(Minor 2nd Appellant is rep. by Next Friend
Mother Sagunthala the 1st appellant herein) ... Appellants
vs.
1. A.Pradeep
2. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, 3rd North Car Street,
Madurai, Tamilnadu.
Branch at 3rd Floor,
Anuradha Complex, Bangalore Road,
Krishnagiri - 635 001. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dated 29.09.2021 in
M.C.O.P.608/2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Krishnagiri.
For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj
For R2 : Mrs.R.Sreevidhya
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.608/2020 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court,
Krishnagiri. 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 Thirupathi (husband of the 1st claimant, father of the 2nd claimant)
in a road accident which happened on 20.06.2020.
2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :
On 20.06.2020, Thirupathi (deceased) was riding a two wheeler
TVX XL Super Heavy Duty on Hosur -Krishnagiri National Highway.
When he was nearing Sikkarimedu Saravanabhavan hotel, a car bearing
Registration number TN-65-AJ-8876 came in the opposite direction and
hit the two wheeler, 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-65-AJ-8876 was the
cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the
second respondent, the National Insurance Company Limited, the owner
and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 fixed
90% negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing Registration
number TN-65-AJ-8876 and 10% negligence on the part of the deceased
as he did not have a valid driving licence and awarded a compensation of
Rs.13,14,000/- (after deducting 10% contributory negligence) together
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realisation, vide its orders dated 29.09.2021. The Tribunal also
held that the liability of the first and second respondents are joint and
several.
6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal and challenging 10% contributory negligence fastened on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
part of the deceased, the appellants / claimants have filed the present
appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. Heard Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent.
8. Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation and also
deducted 10% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased
even though the driver of the Car was rash and negligent in driving his car.
He drew the attention of this court to the evidence of the M.Mahendiran
(R.W.1) the then Special Sub Inspector of Police, Gurubarapalli Police
Station and contended that the police after conducting investigation had
laid a final report against the driver of the car. Hence, the order passed by
the Tribunal fastening 10% contributory negligence is liable to be set
aside.
9. Per contra, Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent contended that the deceased did not have a valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
driving licence for his two wheeler and the vehicle was also not insured.
Hence, fastening 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased
by the Tribunal is in order. She also 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.
10. A perusal of the evidence of M.Mahendiran (R.W.1), the
then Special Sub Inspector of Polcie, Gurubarapalli Police Station shows
that the driver of the Maruthi Suzuki car was the wrong doer. The FIR
(Ex.P1) was registered against the driver of the car and the police after
conducting investigation had laid a final report against the driver of the
car. The Tribunal had, without any basis, fastened negligence on the part
of the deceased to the extent of 10%. In the circumstances, 10%
contributory negligence fastened on the part of the deceased Thirupathi is
liable to be set aside.
11. According to the claimants, the deceased was a Mason, aged
about 40 years, earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. In the facts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the notional monthly income
of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- as there is no income proof. The Tribunal
had deducted Rs.3,000/- towards personal expenses and applied proper
multiplier as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and others vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121
and. The Tribunal has also granted compensation towards Loss of
Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses as per the decision in
National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others. Thus, the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
12. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
ii. The quantum of compensation passed by the Tribunal is upheld.
iii. 10% of the contributory negligence fastened on the part of the
deceased Thirupathi is set aside.
iv. The liability of the first respondent (owner) and the second
respondent (the National Insurance Company Limited) is joint and
several and the second respondent is directed to deposit the entire
compensation amount i.e., Rs.14,60,000/- (less the amount already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deposited) together with interest @ 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/uploading of
the order to the credit of M.C.O.P.608/2020 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri.
v. On such deposit being made, the 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 share of the minor appellant is directed to be deposited in any
one of the Nationalised Bank till he attains majority.
03.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
vum
R.HEMALATHA, J.
vum
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge, Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
