Madras High Court
Soundari vs M. Deepan Raj Kumar on 24 September, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and
C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
C.M.A. No.2225 of 2019
1. Soundari
2. Palaniappan ... Appellants
vs.
1. M. Deepan Raj Kumar
2. The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Sakthi Super Market Building,
3rd Floor, 406, Perundurai Road, Erode 638 011 ...Respondents
C.M.A. No.1167 of 2020
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Door No. 406, 3rd Floor,Sakthi Super Market Building,
Perundurai Road, Erode 638 011. ... Appellant
vs.
1. P. Soundari
2. P. Palaniappan
3. M. Deepan Raj Kumar ...Respondents
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
COMMON PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 30.08.2016
in M.C.O.P.896/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Subordinate Court, Sathyamangalam.
Appearance In C.M.A. No.2225 of 2019
For Appellants : Mr. R. Nalliyappan
For R1 : Notice dispensed with
R2 : Mr. K. Moorthy
Appearance in C.M.A. No.1167 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr. K. Moorthy
For R1 : Mr. R. Nalliyappan
R2 : Insufficient address.
R3 : Left
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellants in C.M.A.2225 of 2019 are the claimants in
M.C.O.P.896/2010 on the file of the the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Sathyamangalam, while the appellant
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, in C.M.A.1167 of 2020 is
the second respondent in the said petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
2. The claimants filed the abovesaid claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of their son Mohan in a road accident that
occurred on 06.10.2010.
3. The case of the claimants in a nutshell is as follows:
3.1. On 06.10.2010, C.P. Mohan (since deceased) was travelling
in a TATA Indigo car bearing Registration number TN-33-AR-9133 on
Thalavadi-Erode Road. The driver of the car drove the vehicle rashly and
negligently and hit a lorry bearing Registration Number RH-14-GA-0621
that was coming in the opposite direction as a result of which C.P. Mohan
sustained injuries all over his body. He was immediately rushed to the
Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam. However he succumbed to
injuries on the same day.
3.2. According to the claimants the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the TATA Indigo car bearing Registration number TN-33-
AR-9133, was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
was insured with the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, both
of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them.
4. In the Tribunal, the owner of the car remained absent and was
set exparte. The Reliance General 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, framed
the following issues.
1) Who is responsible for the accident?
2) Who has to pay compensation to the claimants?
3) What is the amount of compensation?
While answering issue number 1, the Tribunal had held that the driver of
TATA Indigo car bearing Registration number TN-33-AR-9133 was the
wrong doer. However, while answering issue number 2, the Tribunal
fastened composite negligence on the part of the driver of both the
vehicles in the ratio 50:50. Since the driver of the car bearing
Registration number TN-33-AR-9133 did not have a valid driving licence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
on the date of accident, the Tribunal directed the Reliance General
Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs.13,93,700/- ( 50% of the Award
amount) to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, in the first
instance and then recover the same from the owner of TATA Indigo car
bearing Registration number TN-33-AR-9133, under the same cause of
action (pay and recover), vide its orders dated 30.08.2016.
6. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the
claimants as well as the Insurance Company have filed the present
appeals.
7. Heard Mr. R. Nalliyappan, learned counsel for the
appellants in C.M.A. No.2225 of 2019 and Mr. K. Moorthy, learned
counsel for the respondent Insurance Company.
8. Mr. R. Nalliyappan, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants contended that the Tribunal though had come to a conclusion
that the driver of the car bearing Registration number TN-33-AR-9133
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
was responsible for the accident, had also fastened composite negligence
on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles in the ratio 50:50 and
therefore, the same has to be set aside.
9. Per contra K. Moorthy, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company contended that the claimants had failed to implead the driver of
the lorry bearing Registration Number RH-14-GA-0621 and the insurer
as parties to the claim petition and in the circumstances, they are entitled
to pay only 50% of the Award amount passed by the Tribunal. He further
contended that the Tribunal had added 50% towards future prospects
though the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co.
vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601 has laid
down that 40% alone can be added towards future prospects as the
deceased was not permanently employed. His further contention was that
the deceased was a bachelor and the Tribunal had wrongly deducted 1/3
towards his personal expenses. He therefore prayed for setting aside the
order of the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
10. A perusal of the records shows that the Sub Inspector of
Police, Hasanur Police Station, registered FIR in Crime No.53/2010
against the driver of the car bearing Registration number TN-33-AR-
9133 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The
Rough Sketch (Ex.P3) shows the place of occurrence as the western side
of North-South Road. The lorry was proceeding towards northern side
while the car was coming in the opposite direction. Since the accident had
happened on the western side of the road, it is clear that the driver of the
car was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle. The eye witness account
is also clear as to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car.
The Tribunal also concluded that the driver of the car was responsible for
the accident while answering issue number 1. However, the Tribunal got
confused and fixed composite negligence on the part of drivers of both the
vehicles in the ratio 50:50 while answering issue number 2.
10.1. It is well settled that when there are two tortfeasors, the
claimant can proceed against anyone of the tortfeasors and in the instant
case, the claimant had chosen to proceed against the owner of the car and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
his Insurance Company. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was wrong in
deducting 50% from the total compensation awarded to the claimants.
Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. However, since the driver of
the car did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident, the
Insurance Company shall pay the award amount at the first instance and
then recover the same (pay and recover) from the owner of the vehicle on
the same cause of action.
Quantum:
10.2. The Income Tax Returns (Ex.P10 and Ex.P13) show that
the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.13,016/- per month. The Tribunal
had wrongly added 50% towards future prospects. 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% should be added
towards future prospects of the deceased. Since the deceased died as a
bachelor, 1/2 should be deducted towards his personal expenses.
However, the Tribunal had wrongly deducted 1/3 towards the personal
expenses of the deceased especially when there are no minor siblings
depending on his income. The proper multiplier to be adopted in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
instant case is 17 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.13,016/-
40% Future Prospects = Rs.18,222/-
After 1/2 deduction = Rs.9,111/-
Loss of dependency
= Rs.9,111/- x 12 x 17
= Rs.18,58,644/-
In addition to that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/-
(40,000 x 2), 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).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
10.3. The modified amount under the different heads are
detailed hereunder:
S.No. Head Amount granted
by this court (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 18,58,644/-
2. Loss of consortium 80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 2)
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Total 19,68,644/-
This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
11. In the result,
i. The appeals in C.M.A. No.2225 of 2019 and C.M.A. No.1167 of
2020 are partly allowed. No costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
ii. The order of the Tribunal fixing composite negligence on the part
of the offending vehicles in the ratio 50:50 is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
iii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.19,68,644/-.
iv. The appellant, the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
in C.M.A. No. 1167 of 2020 is directed to deposit the
compensation amount of Rs.19,68,644/- (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, in the first
instance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order/uploading of this order, to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.896/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Sathyamangalam, and then recover
the same (pay and recover) from the third respondent in
C.M.A.1167/2020, the owner of TATA Indigo car bearing
Registration number TN-33-AR-9133, under the same cause of
action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
v. On such deposit being made, the claimants are at liberty to
withdraw their share as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal
after filing a proper petition for withdrawal.
vi. The appellants/claimants in C.M.A. No.2225 of 2019 is not entitled
to claim interest for the period of delay of 399 days in filing the
appeal.
24.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
bga
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Subordinate Court, Sathyamangalam.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.7328 of 2020
R.HEMALATHA, J.
bga
C.M.A.Nos.2225 of 2019 and 1167 of 2020 and
24.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
