Madras High Court
Narmatha vs Sathya on 19 September, 2024
C.M.A.No.251 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.M.A.No.251 of 2022
1.Narmatha
2.Minor Haripriya
3.Minor Tharun`
4.Rajamani
The 2nd and 3rd Minor
petitioners are rep., by
their next
friend/Guardian/Mother
Narmatha.
... Appellants
Versus
1.Sathya
2.The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Divisional Office: Dhivya Towers,
15-1, 2nd floor, Fort Main road,
Salem-636 001. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988), against the order in MCOP.No.1701 of 2019, dated
02.09.2021, on the file of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal/Special
District Judge Court, Salem.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.251 of 2022
For Appellants : M/s.C.Paraneedharan
For RR1 : Exparte
For R2 : Mr.J.Vijaya Raghavan
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous appeal is directed as against the order passed
by the Special District Judge Court, Salem, in MCOP.No.1701 of 2019,
dated 02.09.2021.
2.Shortly stated, on 07.05.2019, at about 3.p.m, when the deceased
Ashok was standing in the Salem Namakkal main road near Pon nagar
Nobal Honda Show Room, a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 90
-D7795 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit against
the deceased Ashok. Due to the said accident, the said Ashok sustained
grievous injuries and was admitted in the Government Hospital at
Namakkal were he succumbed to injuries on 07.05.2019 at about 8.20
hours. At the time of accident, the deceased was 40 years old. He was
working in a private work shop receiving salary of Rs.30,000/- per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
month. Accordingly, claim for compensation has been made by the legal
heirs.
3.The 1st respondent/ owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte.
4.The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company alleged that the accident
took place due to the negligence of the deceased who suddenly crossed
the road and fell before the motor cycle. Therefore, the Insurance
Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
5.The claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident
took place as alleged and the claimants are entitled to claim
compensation from the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle, since, the
driver of the 1st respondent vehicle was not having a valid license at the
time of the accident and ordered for pay and recovery.
6.Through this appeal, award has been challenged by the claimants
on the ground namely, quantum awarded by the Tribunal is very low.
There is no dispute with regard to taking place of the accident, as alleged
by the claimants, but for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would not have taken place. Findings recorded by the learned claims
Tribunal is, therefore, sustained.
7.There is a dispute with regard to the income of the deceased.
M/s.C.Paraneedharan, learned counsel for the claimants, submits that the
deceased at the time of accident was working in a private workshop and
was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimant has produced
Ex.P.23 certificate to prove the income of the deceased. But the Tribunal
without considering the above document erroneously fixed the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. His further submission
is that though there are four dependents, the Tribunal has erroneously
taken 1/3rd while calculating the annual dependency. The learned counsel
for the claimants would further submit that the deceased was the sole
bread winner of the family and the claimants being the wife, minor
children and mother of the deceased are struggling for their livelihood.
The award of Rs.14,13,000/- is very meagre and therefore the same
requires consideration by this Court.
8.On the other hand, Mr.J.Vijaya Raghavan, learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent would submit that the Tribunal has awarded a just
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation considering the oral and documentary evidence on record
which calls for no interference.
9.Heard on both sides, records perused.
10.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the age
of the deceased and the year the accident took place, this Court deems it
appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per
month with 25% for future prospect. Admittedly, there are four
dependents. Consequently, annual dependency after deduction of 1/4th
towards personal expenses and multiplied by 13, loss of income to the
petitioners, comes to Rs.20,47,500/-. The other sums awarded to the
claimant are confirmed. It is also not in dispute that the driver of the
offending vehicle did not possess a valid license at the time of accident.
Hence, pay and recover ordered by the Tribunal is sustained.
11.Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to enhance the
compensation as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No Description Amount Amount Award
awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of income 12,48,000 20,47,500 Enhanced
2. Loss of love and 80,000 80,000 Confirmed
affection
3. Loss of 40,000 40,000 Confirmed
consortium
4. Medical Bills 20,000 20,000 Confirmed
5. Funeral Expenses 25,000 25,000 Confirmed
Total 14,13,000 22,12,500 Enhanced by
Rs.7,99,500/-
12.In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.14,13,000/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.22,12,500/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay the above said
compensation amount now determined by this Court to the claimants
along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of
this Judgment and shall recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the vehicle thereafter. On such deposit the Claimants 1 and 4 are
permitted to withdraw their share amount along with interest and cost,
less the amount already withdrawn, if any by filing necessary application
before the Tribunal. The 1st claimants being the wife of the deceased is
entitle to Rs.13,12,500/-. The claimants 2 to 4 are entitled to
Rs.3,00,000/- each towards their shares. The share amount of the minor
claimants 2 and 3 shall be invested in any one of the Nationalized banks
until they attain majority and the 1st petitioner being their mother and
natural guardian is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the
share of the minor petitioners once in three months for the maintenance
and welfare of the minors. The claimants are directed to pay the
necessary Court fee, if any for the enhanced award amount. No costs.
19.09.2024
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Special District Judge Court, Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
vsn
19.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
