High Court · 2025

CMA.No.1112 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 17.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARCMA No.1112 of 20251. Minnoli2. Kamini3. Sushmitha4. Minor Nithya5. Minor Thaarun ... Appellants Vs.1. P.Rajkamal2. United India Insurance company ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, branch office at No.4 & 5, Kandasamy Mudali Street, Ranipet, Vellore 632 401. ... RespondentsPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to enhance the compensation amount and fix the entire liability on the 2nd respondent in MCOP No.1021 of 2023, dated 01.02.2025 on the file of the Special District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.For appellants: Mr.S.P.YuarajFor Respondents: Mr.J.Chandran for second respondentPage 1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1112 of 2025JUDGMENT Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come before this court by filing the present appeal.2. It is the case of the claimants that the husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 5 namely Margandan died in a road accident that had occurred on 24.02.2023 involving a lorry. According to the claimants, the deceased was riding his motorcycle slowly and steadily by observing traffic rules on the extreme left side of the road from Chennai to Krishnagiri National Highway and when he came near Bargur Bye Pass Seenivasan Coconut Mundy, a lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a consequence, the deceased sustained injuries and died. Therefore, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.3. The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal and Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1112 of 2025the claim petition was resisted only by the second respondent, insurer of the offending lorry by stating that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The insurance company also claimed that the deceased had driven the vehicle without R.C., insurance and driving licence and hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.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 lorry by its driver. However, taking into consideration that the deceased failed to produce valid driving licence, R.C. and insurance, the Tribunal fixed 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and after deducting the amount towards contributory negligence, directed the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.16,06,400/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and also the fixation of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the claimants have come before this court by filing the present appeal.5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1112 of 2025failure to have valid driving licence perse cannot be taken as a ground for fixing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in J.Dinesh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in CDJ 2017 SC 1416. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the notional income of Rs.12,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is meager one and the same requires enhancement.6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ insurance company would submit that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the avocation, income and age of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing notional income at Rs.12,000/- per month. He also supported the findings of the Tribunal in fixing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for his failure to produce valid driving licence.7. It is not in dispute that the claimants failed to produce driving licence of the deceased. However, mere failure to produce driving licence cannot be taken as a ground to fix negligence on the part of the Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1112 of 2025deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs Surinder Singh and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 436, categorically held that mere failure to have valid driving licence perse is not a ground to fix contributory negligence, unless there is a positive evidence on record to show that the deceased also contributed to the accident. The said decision in Sudhir Kumar case was subsequently affirmed by the 3 Members Bench of the Apex Court in Dinesh Kumar case, cited supra.8. In the case on hand, absolutely, there is no evidence to suggest that the victim by his negligence, contributed to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in fixing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for his failure to produce valid driving licence, R.C., etc. It is also pertinent to mention that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, cited supra, the finding rendered by the Tribunal on the contributory negligence is set aside.9. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was a lorry driver and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1112 of 2025However, in order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. The heavy vehicle driving licence of the deceased was marked as Ex.P13. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was authorised to drive heavy vehicle. Taking into consideration that the deceased was qualified to drive heavy vehicle and also the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2023, this court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month as notional income. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 50 years, based on the Ex.P13, driving licence. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 25% enhancement towards future prospects. The applicable multiplier is 13. Since there were 5 dependents, on the date of accident, 1/4 shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, loss of dependency is fixed at Rs.26,32,500/- (18,000 x 1.25 x12 x 13 x 3/4).10. Since the accident had occurred after 3 years from the date of delivery of the judgment by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 on 31.10.2017, the claimants are entitled to 10% Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1112 of 2025enhancement on the conventional heads. Accordingly, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- each to the claimants 1 to 5 towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.16,500/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Hence, the same are confirmed.11. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is revised as under:Sl. NoDescriptionAmount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)Amount awarded by this Court (Rs)Award confirmed or enhanced or granted1.Loss of Dependency17,55,00026,32,500enhanced2.Loss of consortium to first claimant, loss of love and affection to claimants 2 to 52,20,0002,20,000confirmed3.Loss of estate16,50016,500confirmed6.Funeral expenses16,50016,500confirmed Total20,08,00028,85,500enhancedLess 20% towards contributory negligence4,01,600--set aside Compensation16,06,40028,85,500enhanced by Rs.12,79,10012. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1112 of 2025Rs.16,06,400/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.28,85,500/- 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.15,35,500/-, claimants 2 to 4/daughters are entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- each and the 5th claimant/minor son is entitled to Rs.6,00,000/-. 14. The second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount now determined by this Court to the credit of MCOP No.1021 of 2023 on the file of the Special District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri. along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 15. It is seen from the cause title of the award copy that the 4th claimant namely Nithya was 17 years at the time of filing claim petition in the year 2023 before the Tribunal and hence, she should have Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1112 of 2025attained majority at the time of passing the award. Therefore, on such deposit being made by the second respondent, the claimants 1 to 4 shall be permitted to withdraw their respective compensation amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, by making a formal application before the Tribunal.16. Since the 5th claimant being a minor, his 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 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/5th claimant. There shall be no order as to costs.17.04.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order: Yes/NoNeutral citation : Yes/Nomst To1. The Special District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1112 of 20252. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court.Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1112 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.mstCMA No.1112 of 202517.04.2025 Page 11 of 11