Madras High Court
Vasantha vs Alagesan on 20 September, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
CMA.No.2550 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.2550 of 2024
1.Vasantha
2.Nandhitha
3.Roshini
4.Chinnammal
5.Muthan ... Appellants
vs.
1.Alagesan
2.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
2nd Floor, Sethukrishna Trade Centre,
Gugai, Salem District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 01.11.2022 in
M.C.O.P.451 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Salem.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2550 of 2024
For Appellants : Mr.R.Navaneetha Krishnan
For R2 : Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.451 of 2020 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem. They filed the claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- for the death of one Devaraj ( husband of
claimant 1 ; father of claimants 2 and 3 ; son of claimants 4 and 5) in a
road accident that occurred on 07.12.2019.
2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :
On 07.12.2019, Devaraj (since deceased) was riding his two
wheeler bearing Registration Number TN-34-AZ-7900 on Salem -
Coimbatore Main Road. When he was nearing KRP School in
Pachayampalayam, a car bearing Registration Number TN-90-B-4356
belonging to the first respondent, hit the two wheeler driven by Devaraj
(deceased), as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries all
over his body. He was immediately rushed to Government Hospital,
Komarapalayam from where he was shifted to KMCH Hospital, Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
However, he succumbed to injuries on 08.12.2019.
3. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the car bearing Registration Number TN-90-B-4356 was the
cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the
second respondent, the New India Assurance 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 car remained absent and
was set ex parte. The second respondent, the New India Assurance
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 car bearing Registration Number
TN-90-B-4356 and further held that the owner of the car and the insurer
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.14,05,000/- to
the appellants (claimants) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, vide its orders
dated 01.11.2022.
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.R.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants and Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel appearing
for the second respondent.
8. Mr.R.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants would contend that the deceased was working as a bore
well operator earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the
Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased only as
Rs.10,000/- including future prospects, which, according to him, is very
meagre. He therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation.
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. In the claim petition, it is contended that the deceased was
aged about 47 years and was a bore well operator earning a sum of
Rs.30,000/- per month. In the absence of satisfactory income proof, the
Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-
including future prospects. 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.16,000/- 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 five
dependents, 1/4th 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC
Calculation
Notional Income = Rs.16,000/-
25% Future Prospects = Rs.20,000/-
After 1/4 deduction = Rs.15,000/-
Loss of dependency
= Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 13
= Rs.23,40,000/-
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.26,56,453/- ( 23,40,000 + 2,00,000
+ 15,000 + 15,000 + 86,453= 26,56,453) 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.23,40,000/-
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/-
5. Medical Expenses Rs.86,453
TOTAL Rs.26,56,453/-
11. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
to Rs.26,56,453/- 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 to
Rs.26,56,453/-.
iii. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay the court fee for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
enhanced compensation amount, if any, within a period of four
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 New India Assurance Company
Limited, Salem, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount i.e., Rs.26,56,453/- (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.451 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vi. The appellants/claimants are not entitled to claim any interest for
the period of delay of 445 days in filing this appeal.
20.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Salem.
2.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
2nd Floor, Sethukrishna Trade Centre,
Gugai, Salem District.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
