High Court · 2025

CMA.No.33 of 20255. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections as aforesaid in the order dated 09.01.2025 and issue fresh copy of the order to the learned counsel for the parties.17.02.2025skt3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.33 of 2025M.DHANDAPANI, J.sktC.M.A.No.33 of 202517.02.20254/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.33 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :09.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANICMA.No.33 of 20251. Pattu2. Bharathraj3. Bharathi4. Sundrampal(The 3rd appellant is suo motu declared as major vide order dated 09.01.2025 in CMA.No.33 of 2025)...AppellantsVs.1.Prabhu2. The Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.,Ariyalur Micro Office (730906), No.23-A,Perambalur Main Road,Ariyalur Taluk and District. ...RespondentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the compensation amount and fix the entire liability on 2nd respondent made in Judgment and decree dated 29.01.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019 on the file of the MCOP Tribunal, Additional District Sessions Court, Ariyalur.For Appellants: Mr.S.P.YuarajFor Respondents: Notice dispensed with vide order dated 18.12.2024 Mr.J.Chandran for R25/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.33 of 2025JUDGMENTChallenging the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Sessions Court, Ariyalur, the claimants have filed the above appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. It is the case of the claimants that, on 29.03.2019 at about 8.00a.m, when one Manikandanwas travelling in a two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN 46 P 7819 along with his deceased friends namely Paramasivam and one other, at that time a Tipper lorry bearing Regn.No.TN 46 U 6009 driven by the first respondent insured with the second respondent, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle in which the deceased was travelling, due to which the deceased Paramasivam sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. Thereby, the first appellant, who is the wife of the deceased, appellants 2 and 3, who are the son and daughter of the deceased and the third appellant who is the mother of the deceased have filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.188 of 2019 claiming a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.33 of 20253. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two witnesses viz. P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.12 and the respondents have examined R.W.1 to R.W.3 and marked Exhibits R.1 to R4. After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,57,153/- for the death of the deceased after deducting 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for triple riding at the time of accident. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the above said accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent and the accident is of the year 2019 and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 50 years and was earning not less than a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, however, the tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/-, which is very meagre and the same is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in catena of decisions and thereby, the same has to be interfered with. Further, the compensation 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.33 of 2025awarded under other heads are also on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contended that, when there is no proof of income, the Tribunal by considering all the relevant documents has fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- and has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.10,57,153/-, which does not require any enhancement. Moreso, the Tribunal has deducted 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for triple driving which was also confirmed by this Court in a similar case arising out of the very same accident, hence the same may be confirmed. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.6. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties and this Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is concerned, the accident is of the year 2019 and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 50 years, however, the Tribunal had fixed the notional 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.33 of 2025monthly income at Rs.7,500/-, which is on the lower side. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Company reported in 2014 (1) TANMAC 459, and also considering the age of the deceased as also the claimants, fixing a notional income of Rs.17,000 as has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680 after adding 25% towards future prospects, the income is arrived at Rs.21,250/- (17,000/- + 4,250/-). Deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.15,937/- per month (Rs.21,250/- - Rs.5,313/-)and the deceased being aged about 50 years, as evidenced from the records, adopting the multiplier of 13 as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC &Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.15,937/- * 12 * 13 = Rs.24,86,172/-. 8. A sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded under the head “loss of consortium” for all the appellants, however, the wife is only entitled to obtain loss of consortium, this Court grants a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the said head for the first appellant. No amount has been awarded to the appellants 2 to 4 under the head loss of love and affection, hence this Court grants a sum of 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.33 of 2025Rs.1,20,000/- to the appellants 2 to 4 under the said head. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the other heads are just and reasonable and the same does not requires interference of this Court. It is pertinent to note that, the Tribunal has erroneously deducted 10% contributory negligence from the loss of income of the deceased, however, the contributory negligence has to be deducted only from the total compensation. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the fixation of 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for triple driving. Hence the same, is hereby confirmed.9. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under :-HeadsAmount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs.)Modified Award Amount(Rs.)Loss of income10,96,836/-14,86,172/-Less 10% contributory negligence1,09,683/--Loss of estate15,000/-15,000/-Funeral expenses15,000/-15,000/-Loss of love and affection-40,000/-Loss of consortium40,000/-1,20,000/-Total10,57,153/-16,76,172/-After deducting 10% Contributory negligence15,08,555/-10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.33 of 202510. When the claim petition was filed in the year 2019, the third appellant was aged about 17 years. Now, the third appellant should be aged about 25 years and is therefore, major. Though no application has been taken out to declare her as major, this Court suo motu takes into account the age given in the claim petition and also taking into account the efflux of time, declares the third appellant as major and discharges her mother namely Pattu from the guardianship. The Registry shall carry out the necessary amendments. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed in part and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.188 of 2019 is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.10,57,153/- to Rs.15,08,555/- after deducting 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Out of the total compensation, the appellants 1 and 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,01,711/- each and the second and third appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,52,567/- each. 12. The 2nd respondent Insurance is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of MCOP.No.188 of 2019 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.33 of 2025awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the appellants/claimants through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereafter, upon production of proof with regard to payment of Court fee on the enhanced compensation. It is underscored that the appellants are not entitled to any interest for the default period, if any. No costs.09.01.2025rapNCC: Yes/NoIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking Order : Yes/NoTo:1. MCOP Tribunal, Additional District Sessions Court, Ariyalur.2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.33 of 2025M.DHANDAPANI, J.rapCMA.No.33 of 202509.01.202513/13