An appeal by a claimant for enhancement of compensation in a motor accident death case was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's award of Rs. 22,55,012/- after deducting 60% for contributory negligence and based on the deceased's salary, rejecting arguments for higher income and lower negligence apportionment.
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal award confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
D.Sivaprakash S/o Late Deivasigamani
... Appellant
Vs.
(4th and 5th respondents impleaded
as per order passed in M.P.No.732/2017 dated 04.12.2017 and order passed in M.P.No.896/2017 dated 21.12.2017) ... Respondents
Page 1/8
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
Prayer : The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2017 dated 19.08.20121 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court) at Erode.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Naresh Kumar For Respondents : No appearance for R1,R2 & R4 Mr.D.Bhaskaran for R3 & R5
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J. Nisha Banu, J)
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 19.08.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special District Court) at Erode.
2.The case of the claimant in the claim petition is that on 11.10.2016 at about 04.00 p.m., the deceased Sivakami was traveling in Maruti 800 Car, bearing Regn.No.TN30.D.0910 which was driven by the claimant on Chennimalai to Perundurai Road from north to south direction in slow and caution manner. While they were proceedings near 1010 Colony pirivu in front of KSB Bakery, a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 42 V 8850 was parked at no parking place in the middle of the road without adhering to traffic
Page 2/8
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
rules and regulations. Due to which, the Maruti car dashed from behind the TATA Ace vehicle and the deceased sustained grievous injuries on the head, face and left leg as she was seated beside the claimant. Immediately, the deceased was taken to Care 24 Medical Centre and Hospital and admitted in ICU ward where she died at 10.50 p.m. due to her head injuries. The accident had occurred only due to the negligent of the 1st respondent driver of TATA Ace vehicle. Hence, the claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2017 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Special District Court) at Erode, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation for the death of his mother, O.P.Sivakami.
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
Rs.22,55,012/- to the claimant with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit and costs. The Tribunal has ordered that the
3rd respondent/insurer is liable to pay the said Rs.22,55,012/- to the claimant within a month.
that the Tribunal erred in finding that the appellant herein/claimant was negligent to the extent of 60%. He would state that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the driver of TATA Ace Van bearing Reg.No.TN 42 V 8850 who had parked the van in such a manner endangering the safety of the road users and the Tribunal has erroneously fixed only 40% negligence on the part of the driver of TATA Ace Van as the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the said Van. Learned counsel would further state that the Tribunal failed to consider the income of the deceased from the agricultural lands and further, the deduction of 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased is not proper. The Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation.
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
respondent/Insurance Company contended that the TATA Ace was parked on the eastern side on the mud road facing south with the danger light on the back
side. The claimant /appellant had drove the Maruthi Car TN 30D0910 from north to south, in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed and on account of the negligent and rash driving of the appellant, he could not control the car and dashed on the right back side of TATA ace. The appellant, having committed the accident and caused the death of his mother, is not entitled to any compensation. Hence, he would pray to dismiss the appeal.
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
finding that the deceased was not earning any income from the agricultural, even though, agricultural lands are in the name of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal has taken only the salary of the deceased and adding 30% towards future prospects, fixed a sum of Rs.8,36,073/- as her income per annum. Since the dependent of the deceased is her only son, the appellant/claimant, the Tribunal deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses. Further, the aged of the deceased was 46 years at the time of accident, therefore, applying the multiplier 13, the Tribunal, fixed a sum of Rs.54,34,468/- towards loss of income of the deceased, which in our opinion is fair and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the maruthi car, the appellant herein. We are of the opinion that there is no error in the said finding
of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.
(J.N.B., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 11.11.2024
vsi
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court) at Erode.
Page 7/8
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
vsi
C.M.A.No.1909 of 2022
11.11.2024
Page 8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing 60% contributory negligence on the appellant?
Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased's income and future prospects?
Whether the compensation awarded is fair and reasonable?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Sivaprakash
S.Murugan
K.Somasundaram
United India Insurance Company Limited
M.P.Ponnusamy
United India Insurance Company Limited
J.Nisha Banu
R.Sakthivel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
