Madras High Court

Kanimozhi vs Anandh on 10 September, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R. Hemalatha

                                                                                    CMA.No.1795 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 10.09.2024

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                              C.M.A.No.1795 of 2023

                     1.Kanimozhi

                     2.Minor. Pugalavanan

                     3.Minor. Harikrishnan
                     (2 and 3 minor appellants are represented
                     by their mother and natural guardian Kanimozhi)

                     4.K.Ponnusamy

                     5.P.Kasthuri                                             ... Appellants
                                                         vs.
                     1.Anandh

                     2.The United India Insurance Company Limited,
                     Neyveli, Cuddalore District.                         ... Respondents

                     (The first respondent was set ex parte in lower court)



                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 25.04.2012 in
                     M.C.O.P.114 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
                     III Additional District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi.


                     1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     CMA.No.1795 of 2023




                                  For Appellants      : Mr.A.G.Rajan
                                  For R2              : Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan


                                                    JUDGMENT

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.114 of 2012 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kallakurichi. They filed the

claim petition under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one Rajendiran

@ Rajagopal, ( husband of claimant 1, father of claimants 2 and 3 and son

of claimants 4 and 5) in a road accident that took place on 07.03.2010.

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

On 07.03.2010, Rajendiran @ Rajagopal (since deceased) was

riding his two wheeler bearing Registration Number TN-31-C-2340 on

Kachirayapalayam Road and at about 15.35 p.m. another two wheeler

bearing Registration Number TN-32-L-1748 belonging to the first

respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the two wheeler

driven by Rajendiran @ Rajagopal (deceased), resulting in his

instantaneous death.

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

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

the driver of the two wheeler bearing Registration Number TN-32-L-1748

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

with the second respondent, the United India Insurance Company

Limited, the owner of the vehicle and the insurer are jointly and severally

liable to pay compensation to them.

4. In the Tribunal the owner of the two wheeler (first

respondent) remained absent and was set ex parte. The second

respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited 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 two wheeler bearing

Registration Number TN-32-L-1748 and awarded compensation of

Rs.4,75,000/- 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,

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

vide its orders dated 07.08.2023. The Tribunal also held that the liability

of the owner and the insurer is joint and several.

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.A.G.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the

second respondent.

8. Mr.A.G.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would contend that the deceased was working as a Mason in Singapore

earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the

notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/-, which, according

to him, is very meagre. He therefore, prayed for enhancement of the

notional monthly income of the deceased.

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

9. Per contra Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan, 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. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a

Mason in Singapore earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. However,

no satisfactory evidence was adduced by them to substantiate the same.

The passport (Ex.P4) shows that the deceased was frequently visiting

Singapore and was not permanently employed over there. 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 at

Rs.8,000/- 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, 40% is added towards future

prospects of the deceased. Since there are five dependents, 1/4th of the

deceased's income should be deducted towards his personal expenses. The

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

deceased was aged 36 years on the date of accident and the proper

multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 15 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.8,000/-

40% Future Prospects = Rs.11,200/-

After 1/3rd deduction = Rs.8,400/-

Loss of dependency

= Rs.8,400/- x 12 x 15

= Rs.15,12,000/-

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (40,000 x 5),

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.17,42,000/- ( 15,12,000 + 2,00,000

+ 15,000 + 15,000= 36,32,000) 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.15,12,000/-
                                  2.           Loss of consortium           Rs.2,00,000/-
                                               (Rs.40,000/- x 5)
                                  3.           Funeral expenses              Rs.15,000/-
                                  4.           Loss of Estate                Rs.15,000/-
                                  Total                                     Rs.17,42,000/-

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

from Rs.4,75,000/- to Rs.17,42,000/- which would carry interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum.

12. In the result,

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.

ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.4,75,000/- to Rs.17,42,000/-.

iii. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay the court fee for the

enhanced compensation amount, if any, within a period of four

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

weeks from the date of this order and the Registry is directed to

draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.

iv. The second respondent, the United India Insurance Company

Limited, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount

i.e., Rs.17,42,000/- (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.114 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi.

v. Apportionment :

                                   1st claimant / Wife              Rs.4,42,000/-
                                                                    (with interest and costs)
                                   2nd claimant / Son (Minor)       Rs.4,50,000/-
                                   3rd claimant / Son (Minor)       Rs.4,50,000/-
                                   4th claimant / Father            Rs.2,00,000/-
                                   5th claimant / Mother            Rs.2,00,000/-





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

vi. The compensation amount of the minor claimants 2 and 3 shall be

deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank till they attain

majority. The claimants 1, 4 and 5 are at liberty to withdraw their

respective shares after following due process of law.

vii.The appellants/claimants are not entitled to claim any interest for

the period of delay of 1789 days in filing this appeal.

10.09.2024

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mtl

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

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi.

2.The United India Insurance Company Limited, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.