Madras High Court
Devika vs K.Narasimman on 1 April, 2025
CMA.No.542 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 01.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA No.542 of 2025
1. Devika
2. Minor Kesavarthini
3. Minor Pradeep
4. Nanjammal
5. Chinnakutti ... Appellants
Vs.
1.K.Narasimman
2. Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
rep. by its Manager No.64, Pidamaneri Main Road,
Dharmapuri Town and Taluk,
Charmapuri District 636 701. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to enhance the compensation amount made in MCOP
No.775 of 2022 dated 20.11.2024 on the file of the Presiding Officer,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.
For appellants : Mr.S.Udhayakumar
For Respondents : Mr.B.Sivakolappan for second respondent
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
CMA.No.542 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, fixing
compensation, after deducting 20% contributory negligence on the part
of the deceased, the claimants have come before this court by filing the
present appeal.
2. According to the claimants, the husband of the 1st claimant,
father of the 2nd and 3rd claimants, son of the 4th and 5th claimants
died in a road accident that had occurred on 20.06.2022. It is the case
of the claimants that the deceased was proceeding in his motorcycle in
Papparapatti-Pennagaram Road and when he came near Sitlakarampatti
Jayavel's JSK Hallow Bricks, a car belonging to the first respondent
and insured with the second respondent dashed against the two wheeler
and hence, he sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital.
Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/-.
3. The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal and
the claim petition was contested by the second respondent/ insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
company, denying the manner of accident as narrated in the claim
petition. It was the case of the Insurance company that the accident had
occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased.
4. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the negligence on the
part of the driver of the car, the claimants examined an eye witness as
PW2. The driver of the car, insured with the second respondent was
examined as RW1. On appreciation of evidence available on record,
the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased also and fixed 20% contributory
negligence on the part of deceased and 80% on the part of the driver of
the car. The amount payable to the claimants was quantified by the
Tribunal at Rs.23,19,200/-, after deducting 20% towards contributory
negligence. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have come before
this court by filing the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
Tribunal committed an error in fixing 20% contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased. He also submits that the notional income fixed
by the Tribunal at Rs.14,000/- is very much on lower side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
6. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit
that the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of evidence on record, came to
the conclusion that the deceased also contributed to the accident and
rightly fixed 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
He further submits that the claimants have not produced any
documentary evidence to prove the income and avocation of the
deceased and hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing notional
income at Rs.14,000/- per month.
7. The claimants examined an eyewitness as PW2 and he
deposed that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the car by its driver. The driver of the car was
examined as RW1 and he deposed that the deceased had driven his
motorcycle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the car. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW2 and
RW1, the Tribunal fixed 80% contributory negligence on the part of the
driver of the car and 20% on the part of the deceased. Having regard to
the fact that the car is a heavy vehicle and the accident had occurred in
a broad main road, the Tribunal was justified in fixing contributory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
negligence at 20% on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the said
finding of the Tribunal requires no interference by this court.
8. It was stated in the claim petition that the deceased was a
mason and he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. However,
there is no proof of income and avocation of the deceased, on the side
of the claimants. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of the case, date of accident and also the prevailing cost of living, this
court proceeds to fix a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month as notional
income. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 38 years, based
on the Ex.P5, School Transfer Certificate. Therefore, the claimants are
entitled to 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The applicable
multiplier is 15. Since there were 5 dependents, on the date of accident,
¼ amount shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.
Accordingly, loss of dependency is fixed at Rs.34,02,000/- (18,000 x
1.40 x12 x 15 x ¾)
9. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the heads loss of
consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of filial consortium, loss of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
Estate and Funeral expenses are in accordance with the law settled by
the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 and hence, the same
are confirmed.
10. Accordingly, the revised compensation awarded by this
Court is tabulated as under:
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded awarded by confirmed or
by this Court enhanced or
Tribunal (Rs) granted
(Rs)
1. Loss of Dependency 26,46,000 34,02,000 enhanced
2. Loss of consortium to 44,000 44,000 confirmed
first claimant
3 Loss of love and 88,000 88,000 confirmed
affection to claimants 2
and 3
4. loss of filial consortium 88,000 88,000 confirmed
to claimants 4 and 5
5. Loss of estate 16,500 16,500 confirmed
6. Funeral expenses 16,500 16,500 confirmed
Total 28,99,000 36,55,000 enhanced
Less 20% towards 5,79,800 7,31,000 confired
contributorynegligence
Compensation 23,19,200 29,24,000 enhanced by
Rs.6,04,800
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
12. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.23,19,200/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.29,24,000/- together with
interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date
of deposit. The claimants are directed to pay applicable court fee on the
enhanced compensation amount now determined by this court.
13. From the above compensation now determined, the first
claimant/wife is entitled to Rs.15,74,000/-, and the minors /claimants 2
and 3 are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- each, and the claimants/father and
mother are entitled to Rs.1,75,000/- each.
14. The second respondent is directed to deposit the
compensation amount now determined by this Court, 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, 4 and 5 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.
15. Since the claimants 2 and 3 being minors, their respective
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
share shall be deposited in any one of the nationalized banks initially
for a period of 3 years and the same shall be renewed periodically till
their 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 minors/ claimants 2 and 3.
There shall be no order as to costs.
01.04.2025
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
mst
To
1. The Presiding Officer
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Dharmapuri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
mst
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:55 pm )
