Madras High Court

K. Gayathri vs I. Suresh on 27 September, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R. Hemalatha

                                                                                   CMA.No.3513 of 2021


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 27.09.2024

                                                         CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                                 C.M.A.No.3513 of 2021

                     1. K. Gayathri
                     2. Minor Riyashini
                     3.Minor Riyashan
                     4. Dhanakodi                                                   .... Appellants



                                                            vs.
                     1. I. Suresh

                     2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
                        Reliance House, 6th Floor,
                        6, Haddows Road,
                        Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.                            ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 07.08.2019 in
                     M.C.O.P.2062/2016 on the file of the                Motor Accident Claims
                     Tribunal/Special Sub-Court, Cuddalore.


                                    For Appellants     : Mrs. Ramya V Rao
                                    R1                 : No appearance
                                    For R2             : Mrs. C. Bhuvanasundari


                     1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        CMA.No.3513 of 2021




                                                         JUDGMENT

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.2062/2016 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub-Court, Cuddalore.

They filed the claim petition under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of one

Kaliyaperumal (husband of the first claimant; father of claimants 2 and 3

and son of claimant 4) in a road accident that occurred on 06.02.2016.

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

2.1. On 06.02.2016 Kaliyaperumal (since deceased) was riding

his Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing Registration Number TN-

31-AC-2432 on Vadalur-Kumbakonam Main Road. When he was nearing

Serakuppam village, at about 19.30 hours, he hit a TATA Ace Goods

Vehicle bearing Registration Number TN-31-AA-9770, which was parked

on the road without any indicator, as a result of which he fell down and

sustained injuries all over his body. He was immediately rushed to

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

Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. However, he succumbed to injuries

on the way to hospital.

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

TATA Ace Goods Vehicle bearing Registration Number TN-31-AA-9770,

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

with the second respondent, the Reliance General Insurance Company

Limited, Chennai, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable

to pay compensation to them.

4. In the Tribunal the owner of the TATA Ace Goods Vehicle

remained absent and was set ex parte. The second respondent

Insurance Company 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 TATA Ace Goods Vehicle

bearing Registration Number TN-31-AA-9770 and directed the second

respondent, insurer of the said motorcycle, to pay compensation of

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

Rs.14,62,300/- to the 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 07.08.2019. The Tribunal also held that the liability of the

Insurance Company and the owner of the TATA Ace Goods Vehicle is

joint and several.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the claimants have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. Heard Mrs. Ramya V Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mrs. C. Bhuvanasundari, learned counsel appearing for the

second respondent Insurance Company.

8. Mrs. Ramya V Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants contended that the deceased was working as a supervisor cum

loadman earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the

Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased only as

Rs.6,500/-. She therefore prayed for enhancement of compensation.

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

9. Per contra, Mrs. C. Bhuvanasundari, learned counsel

appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company 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 in the present appeal.

10. The age of the deceased was 30 years on the date of

accident. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a

supervisor cum loadman earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. In the

absence of satisfactory income proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional

monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/-. Considering the year of

accident and the age of the deceased, this Court fixes the notional monthly

income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-. 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 the deceased had four dependents, 1/4 is

deducted towards his personal expenses. The proper multiplier to be

adopted in the instant case is 17 as per the decision rendered in Sarla

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

Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Calculation

Notional Income = Rs.15,000/-

40% Future Prospects = Rs.21,000/-

After 1/4 deduction = Rs.15,750/-

Loss of dependency

= Rs.15750/- x 12 x 17

= Rs.32,13,000/-

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4),

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).

10.1. The enhanced amount under the different heads are

detailed hereunder:

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

S.No. Head Amount granted by this court (Rs.)

1. Loss of dependency 32,13,000/-

2. Loss of consortium 1,60,000/-

(Rs.40,000/- x 4)

3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-

4. Loss of Estate 15,000/-

Total 34,03,000/-

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 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to

Rs.34,03,000/-.

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

draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.

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

iv. The second respondent, the Reliance General Insurance Company

Limited, Chennai, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation

amount of Rs.34,03,000/- (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 to the credit of

M.C.O.P.2062/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal/Special Sub-Court, Cuddalore, within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/uploading of

this order.

v. The enhanced compensation amount of Rs.34,03,000/-, is

apportioned to the claimants as below:

K. Gayathri (first claimant) Rs.7,03,000/-

with costs and interest Minor. Riyashini (second Rs.12,00,000/-

                                       claimant)
                                       Minor     Riyashan       (third          Rs.12,00,000/-
                                       claimant)
                                       Dhanakodi (fourth claimant)               Rs.3,00,000/-
                                                                         with costs and interest





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

vi. On such deposit being made, the appellants 1 and 4 are at liberty to

withdraw their share as per the apportionment made by this Court,

with costs and interest, after filing a proper petition for withdrawal.

Since the appellants 2 and 3 are minors, their share, shall be

deposited in a fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised banks

until they attain majority.