Madras High Court
Kasthuri vs Rgovindaraj on 4 April, 2025
CMA.No.939 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 04.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA No.939 of 2025
1. Kasthuri
2. Minor K.K.Vimal
Minor rep. by next friend/mother/Kasthuri
3. Jayakodi
... Appellants
Vs.
1. RGovindaraj
2. The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch office, third floor, Anuradha Complex,
Bangalore Road, Krishnagiri 635 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to enhance the compensation amount made in
MCOP No.694 of 2021 dated 09.12.2022 on the file of the Special
District Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.
For appellants : Ms. L.Manisha
for Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj
For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran for 1st respondent
Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy for 2nd respondent
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 12:29:19 pm )
CMA.No.939 of 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The husband of the first claimant and father of the 2nd
claimant and son of 3rd claimant, namely Karunakaran died in a road
accident that had occurred on 11.03.2021. According to the claimants,
the deceased was working as Contract worker in National Highways
Patrolling party at the relevant point of time. On the fateful day, he
received information regarding brake down of a lorry near Fly over of
Aavin Bridge. Therefore, the deceased went to the spot to carry out the
rescue operation. When he was standing at the place of occurrence, a
crane belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second
respondent was operated by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the deceased. As a result of accident, he sustained
grievous injuries and subsequently died in the hospital. Therefore, the
claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 12:29:19 pm )
3. The first and second respondents filed counter and denied the
liability on the ground that the crane driver had operated the vehicle
slowly and steadily by following the traffic rules and the accident had
occurred only due to the rash and negligence on the part of the
deceased.
4. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came
to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash
and negligent driving of the crane by its driver. The compensation
payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.21,22,200/-. Not
satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the claimants have come before this court.
5. Both the counsel for the appellants and the second respondent
have not advanced any arguments on the questions of liability and
negligence and hence, the points necessary to decide those questions
are not discussed in the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 12:29:19 pm )
6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
accident had occurred in the year 2021 and the Tribunal fixed only a
sum of Rs.11,650/- as income of the deceased and the same is very
much on lower side.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
Tribunal, based on the pay slip produced by the deceased, fixed the
income of the deceased at Rs.11,650/- and the same requires no
enhancement.
8. It is the case of the claimants that at the relevant point of time,
the deceased was a Member of the patrolling party and was working as
a contract worker in National Highways and the pay slip of the
deceased was marked as Ex.P19. A perusal of Ex.P19 would suggest
that the deceased was paid a gross salary of Rs.13,298/- and after
making deduction towards EPF, ESI and Professional tax, a net salary
of Rs.11,650/- was paid to the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal
committed an error in taking the net salary for the purpose of
calculating compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 12:29:19 pm )
9. The deduction of Rs.1,332/- towards EPF and Rs.100/-
towards ESI are all for the benefit of the estate of the deceased.
Therefore, those deductions shall be included while fixing notional
income of the deceased. However, the deduction of Rs.216/- towards
professional tax cannot be included in the income. Accordingly, the
income of the deceased, after deducting professional tax is fixed at
Rs.13,082/-. Based on the postmortem certificate Ex.P3, and the I.D
cards Ex.P11 and Ex.P13, age of the deceased was fixed at 38 years by
the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 40% enhancement
towards future prospects. The applicable multiplier is '15'. Since there
were three persons depending on the income of the deceased at the
time of accident, 1/3 shall be deducted towards personal expenses of
the deceased. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.21,97,776/- (13,082 x 1.4 x 12 x 15 x 2/3) towards loss of
dependency.
10. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads
loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral
expenses are in accordance with the law settled by the Apex Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 12:29:19 pm )
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and hence, the same are confirmed.
11. Accordingly, the revised compensation awarded by this
Court is tabulated as under:
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of Dependency 19,57,200 21,97,776 enhanced
2 Loss of estate 16,500 16,500 confirmed
3. Funeral expenses 16,500 16,500 confirmed
4. Loss of consortium to 1,32,000 1,32,000 confirmed
first claimant and loss
of love and affection to
2nd claimant and loss of
filial consortium to 3rd
claimant
Total 21,22,200 23,62,776 enhanced by
2,40,576
12. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal at Rs.21,22,200/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.23,62,776/-
together with interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the delay period of
687 days as per the order of this court in CMP No.3388 of 2025, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 12:29:19 pm )
18.03.2025) from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
13. From the above compensation now determined, 1st claimant/
wife is entitled to Rs.14,12,776/-, 2nd claimant/son is entitled to
Rs.6,00,000/- and the 3rd claimant/mother is entitled to Rs.3,50,000/-.
14. The second respondent is directed to deposit the
compensation amount now determined by this Court to the credit of
MCOP No.694 of 2021 on the file of the Special District Judge,
MACT, Krishnagiri, along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the
claimants 1 and 3 shall be permitted to withdraw their respective
compensation amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if
any, already withdrawn, by making formal application before the
Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 12:29:19 pm )
15. Since the 2nd claimant being a minor, his share shall be
deposited in a fixed deposit in any one of the nationalized banks,
initially for a period of 3 years and the same shall be renewed
periodically till his attainment of majority. The first claimant is entitled
to withdraw the accrued interest thereon once in six months and the
same shall be used for the welfare of the minor/ 2nd claimant.
There shall be no order as to costs.
04.04.2025
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
mst
To
1. The District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 12:29:19 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
mst
04.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 12:29:19 pm )
