Madras High Court
Vanitha vs G.Raghunathan on 10 September, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
CMA.No.1365 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.1365 of 2024
1. Vanitha
2. Ponnammal
3.Kuppusamy ... Appellants
vs.
1. G.Raghunathan
2. The Manager,
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited,
No.1, II Floor, Subramaniyam Buildings,
Club House Road,
Anna Salai, Chennai -2. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 27.08.2021 in
M.C.O.P. 4063 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.U.Chithambaram
For R2 : Mr.G.Vasudevan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1365 of 2024
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P. 4063 of 2018 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court,
Chennai. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- for the death
of one Veerapathiran (the husband of first claimant and son of claimants 2
and 3) in a road accident that took place on 03.03.2018.
2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :
On 03.03.2018, Veerapathiran (since deceased) was riding a
two wheeler bearing Registration Number TN-21-P-1374 on Chengalpattu
- Kancheepuram Road. When he was nearing Krishna Nagar, a lorry
bearing Registration Number TN-11-4610 belonging to the first
respondent, hit the two wheeler driven by Veerapathiran (deceased), as a
result of which, he sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He was
immediately rushed to CMC Hospital, Chengalpattu. 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 lorry bearing Registration Number TN-11-4610 was the
cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the
second respondent, the Royal Sundaram General 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 lorry remained absent and
was set ex parte. 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 lorry and awarded compensation
of Rs.15,60,000/- 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,
vide its orders dated 27.08.2021.
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.U.Chithambaram, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent.
8. Mr.U.Chithambaram, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that the deceased was working as a driver for a
private concern earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. According to
him, the claimants had filed the salary certificate (Ex.P16) issued by the
employer (P.W.3) of the deceased. The Tribunal fixed the notional
monthly income of the deceased only as Rs.10,000/-. He therefore, prayed
for enhancement of the notional monthly income of the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Per contra Mr.G.Vasudevan, 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 not be disturbed
at this stage.
10. It is seen from the evidence of Megul Patel (P.W.3) and the
salary certificate (Ex.P16) dated 11.02.2020, Veerapathiran (deceased)
was employed as a driver in Ashapura Wood Industries and his salary is
mentioned as Rs.15,000/- per month with daily batta of Rs.100/-. The
person who issued the salary certificate (Ex.P16) has not been examined.
In the absence of satisfactory income proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-. However, 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, 25% is added towards future prospects of the deceased.
Since there are three dependents, 1/3rd of the deceased's income should be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deducted towards her personal expenses. The deceased was aged 44 years
on the date of accident and the proper multiplier to be adopted in the
instant case is 14 as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and others
vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC
Calculation
Notional Income = Rs.15,000/-
25% Future Prospects = Rs.18,750/-
After 1/3 deduction = Rs.12,500/-
Loss of dependency
= Rs.12,500/- x 12 x 14
= Rs.21,00,000/-
In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3),
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- 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.22,50,000/- ( 21,00,000 + 1,20,000
+ 15,000 + 15,000= 22,50,000) 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.21,00,000/-
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/-
Total Rs.22,50,000/-
11. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
from Rs.15,60,000/- to Rs.22,50,000/- 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 from
Rs.15,60,000/- to Rs.22,50,000/-.
iii. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.
iv. The second respondent, the Royal Sundaram General Insurance
Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount i.e., Rs.22,50,000/- (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. 4063 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
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.
10.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Silingi Building, 4th Floor,
Motor Third Party Claims Hub,
No.132, Greams Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
