Partly allowed

V. Geetha v. C.N.Narasimhan

Madras HC3 Mar 2023CMA/304/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by survivors of deceased driver against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court upheld 20% contributory negligence but enhanced pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation to Rs. 22,48,700 based on Supreme Court precedents on income and multiplier calculations.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 22,48,700 with 7.5% interest; Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced award within eight weeks.

V. Geetha Vs C.N.Narasimhan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.No.304 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on Pronounced on 14.02.2023 03.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

C.M.A.No.304 of 2023

¶7

1.V.Geetha, W/o.Vijayakumar 2.Minor Sakthivel, S/o.Vijayakumar 3.Minor Naveen Kumar S/o.Vijayakumar 4.G.Saraswathi, W/o.Gopinath (Minor Petitioners 2 & 3 Rep. by their mother and next friend 1^st Petitioner V.Geetha) All are residing at No.47, Chinnamman Koil Street, 24^th Street, J.P.Estate, Avadi, Chennai 600 054. ... Appellants

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.C.N.Narasimhan No.2/248, Venugopal Nagar Veerapuram, IAF, Avadi Chenani 55. 2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.45, Moore Street, Chennai 1. ... Respondents

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

1/8

¶12

C.M.A.No.304 of 2023

¶13

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Decree and Judgment dated 18.08.2014 made in MCOP.No.419 of 2012 on the

¶14

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Poonamallee.

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj For Respondents : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam (for R2)

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The Appeal has been filed against the Decree and Judgment dated 18.08.2014 made in MCOP.No.419 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident

¶18

Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Poonamallee.

¶19

2.The claim Petitioners are the Appellants herein and they filed this

¶20

Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MCOP.No.419 of 2012. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

¶21

2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

C.M.A.No.304 of 2023

¶23

3.The legal representatives of the deceased G.Vijayakumar filed MCOP.No.419 of 2012, seeking compensation and filed this Appeal on the point of quantum of compensation and contributory negligence.

¶24

4.The factum of the accident, manner of the accident are not under challenge in this Appeal. Accordingly, the findings rendered by the trial Court in this regard are hereby confirmed.

¶25

5.During the trial, on the side of the claim Petitioners, PW1 & PW2 were examined & Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were marked and on the side of the Respondents,

¶26

RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 were marked.

¶27

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claim Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company.

¶28

7.A perusal of documentary evidences as well as evidence of PW2 &

¶29

RW1 coupled with Ex.R.2, reveals that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was also responsible for the accident and fixed 20% of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and I do not find

¶30

3/8

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

C.M.A.No.304 of 2023

¶33

any error in fixing 20% of contributory negligence. Accordingly, the same is hereby confirmed.

¶34

8.On the point of quantum of compensation, based upon Ex.P.4/driving license and the fact that the deceased was working as driver, the Tribunal has fixed notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month. For the accident occurred in the year 2012, the same is enhanced to Rs.13,000/-. As per the Constitution Bench's judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

¶35

Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), 40% has to be added towards future prospects and hence the monthly

¶36

income comes to Rs.18,200/- [Rs.13,000/- + 40% of 13000].

¶37

9.At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 33 years and therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others .Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), right multiplier is '16' for the age of the deceased. Since there are four members in the family of the deceased, 1/4 th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and hence, the pecuniary

¶38

4/8

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

C.M.A.No.304 of 2023

¶41

loss sustained by the claim Petitioners are re-assessed as follows:

¶42

Rs.18200/- x 12 x 16 x ¾ = Rs.26,20,800/-

¶43

10.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of

¶44

consortium to the 1 st claim Petitioner, the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of love and affection, the same is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the same is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. A

¶45

sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate.

¶46

S.No.	Head	Amount(Rs.)
1	Pecuniaryloss	2620800
2	Loss of consortium	40000
3	Loss Love and affection	120000
4	Funeral expenses	15000
5	Loss of Estate	15000
	Total Compensation	2810800
	80% of compensation	2248640
	Rounded off	2248700

¶47

In total, the claim Petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.22,48,700/- (Rupees

¶48

twenty two lakh forty eight thousand and seven hundred only), with 7.5 % interest per annum. The claim Petitioners are not entitled to receive interest for the delay period of 44 in filing the Appeal.

¶49

5/8

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

C.M.A.No.304 of 2023

¶52

In fine,

¶53

(i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs. 22,48,700 /-, with 7.5% interest per

¶54

annum (excluding the period of default of 44 days) to the extent indicated above. No Costs.

¶55

(ii) the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount, with interest and costs before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶56

(iii) on such deposit being made, all the claim Petitioners/Appellants are entitled to get their share in the enhanced award amount, as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal. The claim Petitioners 1 & 4/Appellants 1 & 4 are permitted to withdraw their entire share with proportionate interest and costs, less the award amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The claim Petitioners 2 & 3/Appellants 2 & 3 are minors. The share of the minors shall be kept in a interest bearing fixed deposit in any of the nationalised bank, till they attain majority. The 1^st claim Petitioner/1^st Appellant, who is the guardian of minors, is permitted to withdraw the interest from the deposit of the minors once in three months.

¶57

6/8

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

C.M.A.No.304 of 2023

¶60

(iv) the claim Petitioners are directed to pay the court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee.

¶61

03.03.2023

¶62

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶63

sai

¶64

To The II Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Poonamallee.

¶65

7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

C.M.A.No.304 of 2023

¶67

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,

¶68

sai

¶69

Pre-delivery Judgment made in C.M.A.No.304 of 2023

¶70

Dated: 03.03.2023

¶71

8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V. Geetha v. C.N.Narasimhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Geetha v. C.N.Narasimhan

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

A.Rajamanickam Vs Palanisamay

S.Balasubramaniyan Vs Palanisamay

Rani Vs P.Mahalakshmi

The Divisional Manager Vs Palanisamy

Thangadurai Vs Kumaravel

K.Periyannan Vs P.Arumugam