Madras High Court
Kumaresan vs Aravind @ Aravindhan @ Gobi on 27 September, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
CMA.No.2631 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.2631 of 2024
1. Kumaresan
2. Jayanthi
3. Muthammal .... Appellants
vs.
1. Aravind @ Aravindhan @ Gobi
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Represented by its Branch Manager, Kumbakonam
First Floor, Gopal Raw Library Building,
Town Hall Road, Kumbakonam Town and District.
3. Jayalakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 20.03.2019 in
M.A.C.T.O.P.197/2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-District Court, Karaikal.
For Appellants : Ms. G. Lavanya
for Mr. T. Saikrishnan
For R2 : Mrs. R. Rathna Thara
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2631 of 2024
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in M.A.C.T.O.P.197/2015 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Court,
Karaikal. They filed the claim petition under Sections 140 and 166(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the
death of one Rajendiran (father of claimants 1 and 2 and son of claimant
4) in a road accident that occurred on 06.07.2015.
2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :
2.1. On 06.07.2015 Rajendiran (since deceased) was walking
along Ambagarathur Road, Thirunallar and at about 9.30 p.m.,a speeding
TVS JIVE motorcycle bearing Registration Number PY-02/H 5765 hit
him as a result of which Rajendiran fell down and sustained injuries all
over his body. He was immediately rushed to Government Hospital,
Karaikal. However, he succumbed to injuries on the next day, i.e.
07.07.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the motorcycle bearing Registration Number PY-02/H 5765,
was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured
with the second respondent, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Kumbakonam, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation to them.
4. In the Tribunal the driver and the owner of the motorcycle
remained absent and were 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 rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration
Number PY-02/H 5765, and directed the second respondent, insurer of
the said motorcycle, to pay compensation of Rs.8,21,000/- to the
claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal also held that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
liability of the Insurance Company and the owner of the motorcycle are
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 Ms. G. Lavanya, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mrs. R. Rathna Thara, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent Insurance Company.
8. Ms. G. Lavanya,, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that the deceased was a mason earning a sum of
Rs.500/- per day. But the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of
the deceased only as Rs.7,500/-. She therefore prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
9. Per contra, Mrs. R. Rathna Thara, learned counsel appearing
for the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Award
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 deceased, in the instant case, was aged 53 years and
there are three dependants. According to the claimants, the deceased
was a mason earning a sum of Rs.500/- per day. In the absence of
satisfactory income proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income
of the deceased as Rs.7,500/-. Considering the year of accident and the
age of the deceased, this Court fixes the notional monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.14,000/-. 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, 10% is added towards future prospects of the
deceased. Since the deceased had three dependents, 1/3 is deducted
towards his personal expenses. The proper multiplier to be adopted in
the instant case is 11 as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Calculation
Notional Income = Rs.14,000/-
10% Future Prospects = Rs.15,400/-
After 1/3 deduction = Rs.10,266/-
Loss of dependency
= Rs.10,266/- x 12 x 11
= Rs.13,55,112/-
In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3),
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:
S.No. Head Amount granted
by this court (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 13,55,112/-
2. Loss of consortium 1,20,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 3)
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No. Head Amount granted
by this court (Rs.)
Total 15,05,112/-
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.15,05,112/-.
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.
iv. The second respondent, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Kumbakonam, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount of Rs.15,05,112/- (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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.A.C.T.O.P.197/2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-District Court, Karaikal, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/uploading of
this order. The ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal shall
be kept intact.
v. On such deposit being made, the appellants 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 are not entitled to claim interest for the
period of delay of 79 days in filing this appeal as per the orders of
this Court dated 03.09.2024 in C.M.P. No.4311 of 2020.
27.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
bga
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Court, Karaikal,
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Represented by its Branch Manager, Kumbakonam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
First Floor, Gopal Raw Library Building,
Town Hall Road, Kumbakonam Town and District.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.HEMALATHA, J.
bga
27.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
