Partly allowed

A.Patrick Lazar v. Managing Director

Madras HC9 Apr 2021CMA/3080/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded for a motor accident death. It corrected the quantum by fully considering the deceased's income, future prospects, and multiplier. The total award was increased from Rs.2,42,000 to Rs.5,51,550 after deducting contributor negligence and interest.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's award enhanced from Rs.2,42,000 to Rs.5,51,550 with 7.5% interest; claimants to withdraw the amount.

A.Patrick Lazar Vs Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.3080 of 2012

¶6

1. A.Patrick Lazar

¶7

2. Ruby Lazar ...Appellants / Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai - 600 002. ...Respondents / Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated
29.10.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.2093 of 2008 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge (IV
Fast Track Court) Chennai.

¶11

For Appellants: Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
For Respondent: Mr.K.J.Sivakumar

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

This appeal is laid as against the judgment and decree
dated 29.10.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.2093 of 2008 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge
(IV Fast Track Court) Chennai, thereby awarded the compensation
to the tune of Rs.2,42,000/-

¶14

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to hereunder according to their litigative status before the
Tribunal.

¶15

3. The case of the claimants is that they are the parents
of the deceased. The deceased was a student and part time
Assistant Technical Instructor in Spectrum PBO Private Limited,
Little Mount, Chennai and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month.
While being so, on 21.09.2006, when the deceased was travelled
as a pillion rider in the motor cycle along with another person,
who was the rider of the motor cycle, the bus owned by the
respondent was going in front of the motor cycle and the driver
suddenly applied the break. As a result the motor cycle driven
by the rider collided with the bus due to which, the deceased

¶16

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

¶17

died on the spot. The accident was occurred only due to the rash
and negligent driving of the respondent's bus driver. Therefore,
the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation at
Rs.11,00,000/-.

¶18

4. Resisting the same, the respondent filed counter stating
that the respondent bus driver never drove the vehicle in rash
and negligence manner. The deceased and the another drove the
two wheeler in a rash and negligence manner without maintaining
distance between the bus and two wheeler and they themselves
dashed against the bus and died on the spot. Therefore, the
respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the
claimants. The respondent further stated that the deceased is
student and simultaneously the claimants also claimed that he
was working as Assistant Technical Instructor and it could not
be possible for the deceased to have part time job.

¶19

5. On the side of the claimants, they examined P.W.1 and
P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the respondent
neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in. On the basis
of the evidence available on records and also considering the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side,
the Tribunal found that the negligence on the part of the
respondent and also on the part of the rider of the motor cycle
and fixed liability at 75% as against the respondent and awarded
compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- and also deducted the 25% of the
compensation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants came forward
with the present appeal.

¶20

6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits
that the deceased was working as part time Assistant technical
Instructor in Spectrum BPO Private Limited, Chennai and his
salary certificate has been marked as Ex.P.5. Even then, the
Tribunal did not consider the same and fixed notional income at
Rs.3,000/-, when there is absolutely no contra evidence produced
by the respondent; The Tribunal also failed to consider the
future prospect of the deceased, when the deceased died at the
age of 22 years. The Tribunal found that the accident took place
only on the rash and negligence driving of the respondent's bus
driver and even then fixed 25% liability on the rider of the
motor cycle. The Tribunal also ought to have deducted 1/3rd
income for the personal expenses of the deceased, instead of
that the Tribunal deducted ½ of the income towards personal
expenses of the deceased.

¶21

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent contended that the deceased are tort-feasors and they
themselves drove the motor cycle in rash and negligence manner.
They could not even control their vehicle and hit the back side
of the bus with high speed. Therefore, they themselves invited

¶22

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

¶23

their death and both the rider and pillion rider of the motor
cycle died on the spot. Hence, the respondent is not at all
liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

¶24

8. Heard Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj, learned counsel appearing for
the claimants and Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.

¶25

9. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The
deceased and another were ridding the motor cycle on 21.09.2006.
The respondent's bus was driven by the driver on the same road
and he applied sudden break and stopped the bus. When the
deceased and another were ridding the motor cycle on the same
direction of the bus and due to the sudden stop of the bus, they
hit the bus and sustained grievous injury and also died on the
spot. At the same time, the deceased and another should have
maintained the distance between the bus and two wheeler, as per
the traffic rules. Without even noticing the sudden break of the
bus, they hit the bus on the back side and sustained grievous
injury and died on the spot. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly
fixed the negligence on the part of the bus driver at 75% and
25% negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle.

¶26

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
the claimants marked Ex.P.5, the salary certificate. It revealed
that the deceased was working in Spectrum BPO Private Limited,
Chennai, for the monthly salary of Rs.7,000/-. Simultaneously,
they also claimed that the decease was a student. However, the
Tribunal has taken the monthly salary only at Rs.3,000/-.
Further the Tribunal also failed to consider the future
prospects of the deceased, when he died at the age of 22 years.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the
head of future prospects.

¶27

11. Insofar as the deduction is concerned, the deceased is
a bachelor at the time of his death and as such, the Tribunal
rightly deducted 50% towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal
has taken multiplier of 13. When the deceased died at the age of
22 years, the multiplier has to be taken at 18. At the same
time, the multiplier also has to be taken into account at 40% of
the income towards the future prospects, since the deceased was
a student and he was working as part time Assistant Technical
Instructor. The salary has to be taken into account at
Rs.4,500/- per month. Accordingly the pecuniary loss by the
claimants is calculated as follows :-

¶28

= [(Rs.4,500/- + 40%) X 12 X18] - 50%
= [(Rs.4,500/- + 1,800) X 12 X18] – 50%
=[6,300 X 12 X18] - 50%
= 13,60,800 - 50% = 6,80,400

¶29

Accordingly, a sum of Rs.6,80,400/- has to be awarded under the
head of loss of pecuniary benefits to the claimants.

¶30

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

¶31

12. Insofar as the other heads, the Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards
love and affection. This Court is inclined to grant a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards love and affection. The Tribunal failed to award any
compensation towards loss of estate. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
The claimants are entitled 75% of the award amount after
deducting 25% from the total compensation.

¶32

13. Accordingly the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
stands modifiedasunder :-

¶33

`Sl.No`	`Heads`	`Awarded by the` `Tribunal`	`Awarded by this` `Court`
`1`	`Loss of Pecuniary`	`2,34,000`	`6,80,400`
`2`	`Funeral expenses`	`3000`	`15,000`
`3`	`Loss of estate`	`Nil`	`15,000`
`4`	`Love and affection`	`5,000`	`25,000`
	`Total`	`2,42,000/-`	`7,35,400`
	`Deduction 25%`		`1,83,850`
			`5,51,550`

¶34

14. In the result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed as follows:-

¶35

(i) The award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.2,42,000/- to Rs.5,51,550/-.

¶36

(ii) The award amount will carry the interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the
date of deposit.

¶37

(iii) The claimants are entitled to get the modified award
amount as follows:-

¶38

First claimant- Rs. 3,00,000/-
Second claimant- Rs. 2,51,550/-

¶39

(iv) The respondent is directed to deposit the award
amount, less the amount, if any, already deposited, along with
accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this Judgment.

¶40

(v) On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to
withdraw the amount awarded as above by filing proper
application before the Tribunal.

¶41

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

¶42

(vi) The claimants shall pay requisite Court fee before the
receipt of the copy of the judgment for the enhanced
compensation.

¶43

(vii) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

Assistant Registrar (CS-V)

¶46

// True Copy //

¶47

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶48

Rts

¶49

To

¶50

The Additional District Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(IV Fast Track Court)
Chennai.

¶51

+1cc to Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj, Advocate SR.No.22582

¶52

+1cc to Mr.J.Sivakumar, Advocate SR.No.22149

¶53

C.M.A.No.3080 of 2012

¶54

RLD(CO)
RVM(23/09/2021)

¶55

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

A.Patrick Lazar v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Patrick Lazar v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Murugesan Vs M/S.Seshasayee Peper and Board

C.Chandirapraksh, Vs Sumathi

Zubaida Wahab Vs Najma Ghouse

Karumanan Vs Periyasamy

K.Vijayan S/O Kasinathan Vs M.Mohan

Themanaging Director Vs Pk Narayanan