Partly allowed

Chandra, v. Mr. v.Govindaraj

Madras HC25 Feb 2021CMA/190/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. While upholding the compensation amount based on the deceased's age and judicial precedents, the Court modified the interest rate from 6% to 7.5% p.a. and directed recovery from the vehicle owner as the insurance company had previously absolved liability.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal partly allowed; interest rate enhanced to 7.5% p.a.; recovery directed from vehicle owner.

Chandra, Vs Mr. v.Govindaraj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.2.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.190 of 2014

¶6

Chandra

¶7

... Petitioner/Appellant

¶8

..Vs..

¶9

V.Govindaraj

¶10

The Branch Manager,

¶11

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

¶12

Branch office, No.105, Railway station road, Tirupattur. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶13

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and decree, dated 9.2.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.348 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan For Respondent No.2 : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy For Respondent No.1 : Notice unserved

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Brief facts of the case is as follows:

¶17

It is the case of the claimant that on 25.06.2006, one Sekar was travelling in Eicher lorry bearing registration No.T.N.-39-E 5884 as coolie for loading and unloading mangoes along with two others. After loading the mangoes in the aforesaid lorry at Chinnaraj Mango thope, to unload the mangoes at Krishnagiri, the deceased Sekar and others were travelling in the same vehicle. While the lorry nearing Pannai Kollai kottai of Chikkapoovathi, driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, suddenly the lorry could not be controlled and capsized, thereby caused accident. In the impact, Sekar fell down and caught beneath the lorry and succumbed to death on the spot. A case has been registered in Cr.No.482 of 2006 under Sec.279, 304(A) of I.P.C. by Krishnagiri Police Station. The mother of the deceased has filed a claim petition before the tribunal claiming https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

¶18

Notice served to the first respondent and none appeared. On the side of the petitioner, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked.

¶19

The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides and placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009(1) TNMAC 593 (SC) [R.K.MALIK AND ANOTHER VS. KIRAN PAL AND OTHERS] has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards pecuniary loss and for non pecuniary loss Rs.75,000/-. Tribunal also awarded compensation under various heads along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of petition till realization. The total compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads are as follows:

¶20

Heads		Amount in Rs.
Pecuniary loss		1,50,000/-
Non Pecuniary loss		75,000/-
Funeral expenses		5,000/-
Loss of estate		10,000/-
tal	To	3,15,000/-

¶21

Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance company and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, considering the age of the deceased i.e. 17 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the tribunal ought to have adopted 18 multiplier for fixing the notional income of the deceased. Instead, the tribunal wrongly fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.1000/and awarded meagre amount as compensation. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the tribunal requires modification.

¶23

Considering the age of the deceased, i.e. 17 years and also considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. However, rate of interest i.e. 6% p.a. awarded by the tribunal requires modification. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶24

In C.M.A.No.3149 of 2011 filed by the second respondent/ Insurance Company challenging the very same award in sofar as the liability fastened against the Insurance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Company, this Court absolved the Insurance Company from

¶25

liability and therefore, the appellant has to recover the entire award amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the owner of the vehicle, i.e. first respondent herein.

¶26

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(Lik Adalat)

¶29

//True copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

vaan

¶32

¶33

The Principal District Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Krishnagiri

¶34

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.

¶35

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.190 of 2014

¶36

SPD(CO) GMY(22/09/2021)

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Chandra, v. Mr. v.Govindaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra, v. Mr. v.Govindaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Tmt.Amirtham

The National Insurance Vs Minor Hariprakash

The National Insurance Vs Chandrasekaran

Ragupahy Vs P.Saravanan

Karuppusamy(Died) Vs Gowri

Ramamurthy Vs Srinivasan