Madras High Court

Sagunthala vs Rajkumar on 3 July, 2025

                                                                                             C.M.A.No.724 of 2022


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                       Reserved on                             12.06.2025
                                      Pronounced on                            03.07 .2025
                                                          CORAM


                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

                                                C.M.A.No.724 of 2022

                  1. Sagunthala
                  2. Lakshmi                                                                 …Appellants
                                                      Vs.
                  1. Rajkumar
                  2. Rangaraj
                  3. The Manager
                      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
                      Office at No.209, Shriram Nilayam,
                      Hospital Road, Udhagamandalam
                      Nilgiris 643 001                                                       …Respondents


                  Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
                  Vehicles Act,1988, against the judgment and Award of the Motor Accident
                  Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge Court), Erode in M.C.O.P. No.630 of
                  2018 dated 28.09.2021.




                  1/12




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )
                                                                                              C.M.A.No.724 of 2022


                                             For Appellants              : Mr.J. Pragadeesh
                                                                           for Mr. S. Kaithamalai Kumaran
                                             For Respondents             : No Appearance


                                                            JUDGMENT

Award in M.C.O.P. No.630 of 2018 dated 28.09.2021 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge Court), Erode, is

under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the claimants before the

Tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 On 06.06.2018, at about 1.45 a.m, the first respondent in a

negligent manner and without following the traffic rules parked the lorry

bearing Registration Number TN 21 T 3254 on Kunnathur Road flyover at

Coimbatore-Salem NH 544 Main road and at that time the deceased Anguraj

drove his Bolero Pick up vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 36 AW 7193

towards west-east direction carefully with nominal speed and dashed against

the Tata lorry bearing Registration Number TN 21 T 3254. As a result of the

accident, the deceased suffered multiple grievous head injuries. Immediately

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

the said Anguraj was taken to Government Hospital, Tirupur, where he was

declared brought dead.

2.2. According to the claimants, the deceased Anguraj was 29 years

old at the time of accident and was working as a driver in Times of India

Newspaper at Coimbatore and was earning not less than Rs.25,000/- per

month. The first and second claimants are mother and grand mother

respectively, of the deceased Anguraj. They filed the above claim petition

claiming compensation of Rs.35,55,000/- for the death of the deceased

Anguraj.

2.3. The third respondent/Insurance Company contested the Claim

Petition by stating that the lorry bearing Registration Number TN 21 T 3254

was parked on the left hand side of the road following the traffic rules and at

that time, the deceased, who drove the Bolero vehicle bearing Registration

Number TN 21 T 3254 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the parked

lorry from behind. Hence, the deceased alone invited the accident and

responsible for the same and therefore, the third respondent/Insurance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

2.4. Before the Tribunal the first claimant examined himself as

P.W.1 and one Prabhakaran as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and no

evidence was let in on the side of the respondents.

2.5. Based on the materials on record, the Tribunal fixed 50%

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and awarded a sum of

Rs.7,70,750/- as compensation to be paid by the third respondent/Insurance

Company with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till the

date of realisation.

3. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is preferred. Though the

name of the respondents are printed in the cause list after due notice, there is

no representation on the side of the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

the occurrence took place at 1.45 a.m and that the first respondent had parked

the vehicle in the fly over without switching on the parking lights and without

placing parking symbols and the same has been established through the oral

evidence of P.W.2. His further contention is that once substantive evidence

before the Tribunal established that the lorry had been parked on the road at

night without any parking symbols, there was no reason or justification for the

Tribunal to proceed on the basis of conjecture in arriving at a finding of

contributory negligence. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that both

vehicle drivers have contributed to the accident and accordingly apportioning

the liability in the ratio 50:50 between the deceased and the first respondent.

Hence, the same requires interference by this Court.

4.1. He further submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased

was working as a driver and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and was

getting 25% as yearly bonus. The same is established through the oral

evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P15. The Tribunal, however, fixed the notional

monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- by holding that no proof of

income was produced on the side of the claimants. Learned counsel for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

appellants/claimants would submit that for the accident occurred in the year

2019, this Court, in C.M.A. No.456/2025, fixed the income of the deceased as

Rs.15,000/- per month even in the absence of proof of income. Therefore,

prays for fixing the same income in the present case. In support of his

contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following

decisions.

1. 2018 SCC online Mad 13886 (United India Insurance Company

Limited vs. Kalaivani and others)

2. (2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 807 (Jumani Begam vs. Ram Narayan

and others)

3. C.M.A. No.456 of 2025 dated 19.02.2025 (Radha and others vs. A.

Rajamani and another)

4. C.M.A. No.3019 of 2023 dated 04.06.2025 (S. Venkatesan vs. The

Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited,

Chennai)

5. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent parked the lorry at

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

Kunnathur road fly over at the time of accident. It is also not in dispute that

the deceased Anguraj drove the Bolero Pick up vehicle bearing Registration

No.TN 36 AW 7193 and dashed against the Tata lorry bearing Registration

Number TN 21 T 3254. It is also not in dispute that the alleged accident took

place on 06.06.2018 at about 1.45 a.m. The specific contention of the

claimants is that the 1st respondent parked the lorry without any indicator in

the night hours. This contention of the claimants was corroborated by the

evidence of P.W.2. No contra evidence was let in on the side of the

respondents. At the same time, the responsibility of the deceased who drove

the Bolero vehicle, cannot be ignored as immaterial even though the other

vehicle was parked on the road without proper signal. Needless to say that the

driver of the moving vehicle should have been much more careful and

cautious while driving the vehicle, more particularly, when he was driving the

vehicle during dark hours. Therefore, the collision between the two vehicles

would undoubtedly indicate that the deceased was also negligent and

thus,contributed to the accident. On the part of the other parked vehicle, it

ought to have been parked on the road with proper signal, that too, during

night hours. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that both of them

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

contributed to the accident. However, while fixing the percentage of

negligence on each party, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant is to be noted with some force.

5.1. In view of the above, the percentage of liability is fixed 30:70

between the deceased and the 1st respondent. Having regard to the date of

accident, this Court is inclined to fix Rs.15,000/- as notional monthly income

of the deceased. As per the decision of the Supreme Court of India, 40%

should be added towards future prospects of the deceased. The deceased died

as a bachelor and hence, 50% is deducted towards his personal expenses. The

deceased was aged 29 years on the date of the accident. The proper multiplier

to be adopted in the instant case is 17.

Calculation :

Notional Income = Rs.15,000/-

40% Future Prospects = Rs.6,000/-

Total = Rs.15,000/- + Rs.6,000/- = Rs.21,000/-

After 1/2 deduction = Rs.10,500/-

Loss of dependency :

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )

= Rs.10,500/- x 12 x 17

= Rs.21,42,000/-

In all other aspects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.

The following tabular column would show the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal and the enhanced compensation awarded by this Court.

                          S.No.           Head                Amount       Amount granted
                                                           awarded by the by this court (Rs.)
                                                            Tribunal(Rs.)
                          1.       Loss               of           14,28,000/-                  21,42,000/-
                                   dependency
                          2.       Funeral expenses                    15,000/-                    15,000/-
                          3.       Loss of estate                      15,000/-                    15,000/-
                          4.       Loss of consortium                  80,000/-                    80,000/-
                          5.       Transportation                        3,500/-                    3,500/-
                                   expenses
                          Total                                    15,41,500/-                  22,55,500/-
                                                               Rs.7,70,750/-                   15,78,850/-
                                                                 (50% of the               (70% of the total
                                                                        total              compensation of
                                                               compensation                  Rs.22,55,500/-
                                                                    award of
                                                              Rs.15,41,500/-









https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                  ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )



                                  5.2. Since the      contributory negligence fixed on the deceased is

reduced to 30% from 50% fixed by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled to

a sum of Rs.15,78,850/- (22,55,500 - 6,76,650 = 15,78,850). This amount

shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim

petition till the date of deposit.

6. In the result,

i. The appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

ii. The negligence fixed by the Tribunal in the ratio 50:50 is modified as

30:70 between the deceased and the 1st respondent.

iii. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to

Rs.15,78,850/- from Rs.7,70,750 /-.

iv. The 3rd respondent/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nilgiris

is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.15,78,850/-

along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim

petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already deposited by

them, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )