High Court · 2025

CMA.No.15 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANICMA.No.15 of 20251.Salammal2.Minor Neela3. Minor Chiranjeevi4. Minor MuraliMinors are Rep. by their Next friend/Mother Salammal5. Muniyammal6.Mariyappan ...AppellantsVs.1.M/s. S.R.Enterprises, Prop:Seetharaman,D.No.68, 1st Main Parappana Agrahara,E-City Post, Banglore Rural, Karnataka – 560 100.2. The Branch Manager,HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited,Hubli Branch, Karnataka – 580 022. ...Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the order dated 05.02.2024 madein MCOP.No.1196 of 2020 on the file of the MACT Tribunal, Special 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.15 of 2025District Court, Krishnagiri.For Appellants: Mr.S.P.YuarajFor Respondents: Mr.K.Vinod, for R2 : Notice dispensed with, for R1JUDGMENTChallenging the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2024 made in MCOP.No.1196 of 2020 on the file of the MACT Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri, the claimants have come up with this appeal.2. Mr.K.Vinod, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either side, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.3. It is the case of the claimants that, on 27.02.2022 at about 19.00 hours, when the deceased Nanjappa was travelling as a pillion rider in Bajaj Platina two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN-70-AA-6453 on Thakatti to Anchetty Road, at that time, a Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-AB-5709 owned by the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.15 of 2025driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the above said two wheeler, due to which the said Nanjappa sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Thereby, the appellants, who are the dependents of the deceased Nanjappa filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.1196 of 2020 claiming a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.10 and on the side of respondents, one witness viz., R.W.1 was examined and exhibits R.1 to R.3 were marked. After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, though 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 vehicle, however, fixed 15% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and awarded a sum of Rs.21,80,250/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Nanjappa. 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 appellants submitted that the above said 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.15 of 2025accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle and the accident is of the year 2020 and at the time of accident, the deceased was only aged about 37 years and was working as a Mason and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, however, the tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/-, 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 increased to Rs.20,000/- and the compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. Learned counsel further submitted that, the tribunal had fixed a contributory negligence of 15% on the part of the deceased solely on the ground that, the rider who drove the two wheeler in which the deceased travelled at the time of accident had no valid Driving license and insurance, which is wholly unsustainable and the same has to necessarily be set aside. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.15 of 2025respondent-Insurance Company contended that, by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, which does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.7. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties and the parties have not raised any issue on the aspect of negligence and therefore, this Court is not venturing into the same. 8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is concerned, the accident is of the year 2020 and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 37 years and he was a Mason by profession and the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.12,000/-, 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 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.15 of 2025Company 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/- and adding future prospects at 40%, 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, the income per month is quantified at Rs.23,800/-. Deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.17,850/- per month and the deceased being aged about 30 years, as evidenced from the records, adopting the multiplier of 15 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.17,850/- * 12 * 15 = Rs.32,13,000/-. 9. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under other heads are just and reasonable and the same does not requires interference of this Court.10. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under :-6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.15 of 2025HeadsAmount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs.)Modified Award Amount(Rs.)Loss of dependency22,68,000/-32,13,000/-Loss of consortium2,64,000/-2,64,000/-Funeral Expenses16,500/-16,500/-Loss of estate16,500/-16,500/-Total25,65,000/-After deducting 15% towards contributory negligence, the total compensation is fixed at R.21,80,250/-35,10,000/-11. Insofar as negligence is concerned, the tribunal had fixed 15% contributory negligence on the deceased solely on the ground that the rider of the two wheeler in which the deceased had travelled as a pillion rider at the time of accident had not possessed valid driving license, RC and insurance. When there is no error on the part of the deceased/pillion rider, merely because the rider of the two wheeler has not possessed valid driving license, RC and insurance, fixing a contributory negligence of 15% on the part of the deceased is wholly unsustainable and the tribunal ought to have directed the 2nd respondent/insurance company to pay the entire compensation in favour of the claimants and directed the insurance 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.15 of 2025company to recover that part of compensation ie., 15% of the compensation by way of filing a separate suit as against the owner and rider of the two wheeler in which the deceased travelled at the time of accident.12. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that the contributory negligence of 15% fixed on the deceased is without any proper material and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. Hence, this Court fixes the entire negligence on the part of the driver of 1st respondent vehicle and thereby, the 2nd respondent/insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation in favour of the appellants. However, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to file a separate suit as against the owner and rider of the two wheeler in which the deceased travelled at the time of accident for recovery of part of compensation ie., 15%.13. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed in part and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.1196 of 2020 is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.15 of 2025Rs.21,80,250/- to Rs.35,10,000/-. The 2nd respondent Insurance is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of MCOP.No.1196 of 2020 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 awarded 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. The 1st appellant is entitled to get the award amount Rs.13,29,750/- and the appellants 2 to 4 are entitled to get the award amount of Rs.6,00,000/- each with proportionate interest and costs and the 5th appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and the 6th appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,30,250/-. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the compensation amount apportioned in respect of the major appellants directly to the bank account of the major appellants through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter, upon production of proof with regard to payment of Court fee on the enhanced compensation. Insofar as the apportionment of compensation in favour of the minor appellants is concerned, the Tribunal is directed to invest the same in an interest bearing fixed deposit initially for a period of 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.15 of 2025three years to be renewed till they attain majority and the quarterly interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the 1st appellant/mother of the minor appellants for being used for the welfare of the minors by the guardian. It is underscored that the appellants are not entitled to any interest for the default period, if any. No costs.10.01.2025sktNCC: Yes/NoIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking Order : Yes/No To:1. The MACT Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri.2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.M.DHANDAPANI, J.10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.15 of 2025sktCMA.No.15 of 202510.01.202511/11