High Court · 2024
Case Details
Acts & Sections
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.11.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIC.M.A.No.3084 of 20241.Rajamma2.Manjula3.Nandha Kumar ... Appellants Vs.1.Krishnappa2.The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, No.7-BK Building, Ramalinga Madalaya Street, Gugai, Salem-636 006.3.Muniyamma ... Respondents / RespondentsPRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.354 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. _________Page 1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024For Appellants: Mr.S.P.YuarajFor Respondents: Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy for R2J U D G M E N TThe appellants / claimants, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur, in M.C.O.P.No.354 of 2018, dated 30.11.2021, have filed this appeal.2. On 18.04.2017, at about 16.45 hours, when the deceased was riding his Hero Honda Splendor bearing Reg.No.TN 22 L 1748 in Denkanikottai to Thalli Road in the left side, near Anniyalam Village Guruvareddy's land, the Mahindra Pickup bearing Reg.No.KA 51 D 5682 of the first respondent, which was insured with the second respondent coming from Denkanikottai towards Thalli, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's vehicle, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot of occurrence. The first respondent is the owner of Mahindra Pickup and the second respondent _________Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024is the insurer of the vehicle. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal by the claimants, who are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased, seeking for compensation. The third respondent is the mother of the deceased. 3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and Ex.R1 was marked. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Mahindra Pickup and the driving license of the deceased was not produced inspite of cross-examination on this aspect and therefore, 15% of contributory negligence was fixed on the deceased. Having reached such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.8,38,950/- under various heads. The above compensation was directed to be paid by the second respondent along with _________Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024interest at 7.5% p.a. 4. The claimants, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have filed this appeal seeking compensation.5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously fixed 15% of contributory negligence on the deceased for having not produced the driving license and mere failure to produce the driving license is not sufficient to draw adverse inference in respect of contributory negligence. At the time of accident, the deceased was doing vegetable business/land commission agent and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month only. The Tribunal has failed to award more amount for transport expenses and the compensation awarded under the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants prays for enhancement of compensation. _________Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 20246. The first and third respondents remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / Insurance company denied the manner of accident and claimed that since the deceased has not possessed the driving license at the time of accident, the Tribunal has rightly fixed 15% of contributory negligence on the deceased and the compensation awarded under the other heads is also on the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this appeal. 8. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.9. Though the Tribunal has held that inspite of cross-examination, the driving license was not produced, however, there is no finding with _________Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024regard to the said extent that the petitioner has not possessed of driving license. Merely non-production of driving license cannot be taken a mean to the extent that the petitioner has not possessed the driving license at the time of accident. No steps were taken either by the Tribunal or by the second respondent/Insurance Company to find out whether the deceased was possessing the driving license or not?. In the absence of any material, fixing contributory negligence of 15% on the deceased for the accident cannot be sustained, more so, when the Tribunal has come to a definite conclusion that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's vehicle and therefore, 15% of contributory negligence fixed on the deceased is hereby set aside. 10. The deceased, at the time of his demise, was aged about 55 years and was engaged in vegetable business and land commission agent. The accident had taken place in the year 2017. Therefore, considering the cost of living that was prevailing at the relevant point of time and considering the avocation in which the deceased was involved and also the _________Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024age of the deceased, this Court is inclined to increase the notional monthly income to Rs.13,000/-. If so, the loss of income/dependency would be:Monthly Income:Rs. 13,000/-Add: Future Prospects:Rs. 1,300/-10% of Rs.13,000/------------------Rs. 14,300/-Annual Income:Rs. 1,71,600/-(14,300 * 12)Less : Personal expensesRs.1,71,600/- * 1/3:Rs. 57,200/------------------Rs. 1,14,400/-Multiplier: x 11------------------Loss of income/dependency:Rs.12,58,400/-------------------11. Insofar as transportation expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/- which is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The compensation awarded under the other heads is just and reasonable and is hereby confirmed. _________Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 202412. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the below mentioned heads is modified as under:S.NoHead of CompensationAmount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs)Amount awarded by this Court(Rs)1Loss of DependencyRs.7,92,000/-Rs.12,58,400/-2Spousal ConsortiumRs.40,000/-Rs.40,000/-3Filial ConsortiumRs.80,000/-Rs.80,000/-4Parental ConsortiumRs.40,000/-Rs.40,000/-5TransportationRs.5,000/-Rs.10,000/-6.Funeral ExpensesRs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-7.Loss of EstateRs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-TotalRs.9,87,000/-Rs.14,58,400/-15% Contributory negligenceRs.1,48,050/--Compensation PayableRs.8,38,950/-Rs.14,58,400/-13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.8,38,950/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.14,58,400/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The second respondent /Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award _________Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024amount 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, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.354 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. On such deposit, the appellants and the third respondent are permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal by making proper application before the Tribunal. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. No costs. 28.11.2024NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking Order : Yes / Nossb_________Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024To1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. 2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Chennai._________Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024M.DHANDAPANI, J.ssbC.M.A.No.3084 of 202428.11.2024_________Page 11 of 11
C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.11.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIC.M.A.No.3084 of 20241.Rajamma2.Manjula3.Nandha Kumar ... Appellants Vs.1.Krishnappa2.The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, No.7-BK Building, Ramalinga Madalaya Street, Gugai, Salem-636 006.3.Muniyamma ... Respondents / RespondentsPRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.354 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. _________Page 1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024For Appellants: Mr.S.P.YuarajFor Respondents: Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy for R2J U D G M E N TThe appellants / claimants, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur, in M.C.O.P.No.354 of 2018, dated 30.11.2021, have filed this appeal.2. On 18.04.2017, at about 16.45 hours, when the deceased was riding his Hero Honda Splendor bearing Reg.No.TN 22 L 1748 in Denkanikottai to Thalli Road in the left side, near Anniyalam Village Guruvareddy's land, the Mahindra Pickup bearing Reg.No.KA 51 D 5682 of the first respondent, which was insured with the second respondent coming from Denkanikottai towards Thalli, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's vehicle, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot of occurrence. The first respondent is the owner of Mahindra Pickup and the second respondent _________Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024is the insurer of the vehicle. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal by the claimants, who are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased, seeking for compensation. The third respondent is the mother of the deceased. 3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and Ex.R1 was marked. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Mahindra Pickup and the driving license of the deceased was not produced inspite of cross-examination on this aspect and therefore, 15% of contributory negligence was fixed on the deceased. Having reached such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.8,38,950/- under various heads. The above compensation was directed to be paid by the second respondent along with _________Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024interest at 7.5% p.a. 4. The claimants, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have filed this appeal seeking compensation.5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously fixed 15% of contributory negligence on the deceased for having not produced the driving license and mere failure to produce the driving license is not sufficient to draw adverse inference in respect of contributory negligence. At the time of accident, the deceased was doing vegetable business/land commission agent and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month only. The Tribunal has failed to award more amount for transport expenses and the compensation awarded under the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants prays for enhancement of compensation. _________Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 20246. The first and third respondents remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / Insurance company denied the manner of accident and claimed that since the deceased has not possessed the driving license at the time of accident, the Tribunal has rightly fixed 15% of contributory negligence on the deceased and the compensation awarded under the other heads is also on the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this appeal. 8. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.9. Though the Tribunal has held that inspite of cross-examination, the driving license was not produced, however, there is no finding with _________Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024regard to the said extent that the petitioner has not possessed of driving license. Merely non-production of driving license cannot be taken a mean to the extent that the petitioner has not possessed the driving license at the time of accident. No steps were taken either by the Tribunal or by the second respondent/Insurance Company to find out whether the deceased was possessing the driving license or not?. In the absence of any material, fixing contributory negligence of 15% on the deceased for the accident cannot be sustained, more so, when the Tribunal has come to a definite conclusion that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's vehicle and therefore, 15% of contributory negligence fixed on the deceased is hereby set aside. 10. The deceased, at the time of his demise, was aged about 55 years and was engaged in vegetable business and land commission agent. The accident had taken place in the year 2017. Therefore, considering the cost of living that was prevailing at the relevant point of time and considering the avocation in which the deceased was involved and also the _________Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024age of the deceased, this Court is inclined to increase the notional monthly income to Rs.13,000/-. If so, the loss of income/dependency would be:Monthly Income:Rs. 13,000/-Add: Future Prospects:Rs. 1,300/-10% of Rs.13,000/------------------Rs. 14,300/-Annual Income:Rs. 1,71,600/-(14,300 * 12)Less : Personal expensesRs.1,71,600/- * 1/3:Rs. 57,200/------------------Rs. 1,14,400/-Multiplier: x 11------------------Loss of income/dependency:Rs.12,58,400/-------------------11. Insofar as transportation expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/- which is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The compensation awarded under the other heads is just and reasonable and is hereby confirmed. _________Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 202412. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the below mentioned heads is modified as under:S.NoHead of CompensationAmount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs)Amount awarded by this Court(Rs)1Loss of DependencyRs.7,92,000/-Rs.12,58,400/-2Spousal ConsortiumRs.40,000/-Rs.40,000/-3Filial ConsortiumRs.80,000/-Rs.80,000/-4Parental ConsortiumRs.40,000/-Rs.40,000/-5TransportationRs.5,000/-Rs.10,000/-6.Funeral ExpensesRs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-7.Loss of EstateRs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-TotalRs.9,87,000/-Rs.14,58,400/-15% Contributory negligenceRs.1,48,050/--Compensation PayableRs.8,38,950/-Rs.14,58,400/-13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.8,38,950/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.14,58,400/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The second respondent /Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award _________Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024amount 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, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.354 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. On such deposit, the appellants and the third respondent are permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal by making proper application before the Tribunal. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. No costs. 28.11.2024NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking Order : Yes / Nossb_________Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024To1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. 2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Chennai._________Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.3084 of 2024M.DHANDAPANI, J.ssbC.M.A.No.3084 of 202428.11.2024_________Page 11 of 11