Partly allowed

Sivasakthi v. S.Vaigunthan

Madras HC7 Aug 2024CMA/2079/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court partly allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court enhanced compensation for the death of Mahalingam from Rs.14,05,000/- to Rs.28,38,000/- by adjusting notional income, future prospects, and applying a multiplier of 16 as per Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.14,05,000/- to Rs.28,38,000/- to be paid jointly and severally with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Sivasakthi Vs S.Vaigunthan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMA.No.2079 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

C.M.A.No.2079 of 2024

¶7

Sivasakthi

¶8

Minor.Praneesh

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

(Represented by Next friend / Guardian mother Sivasakthi, first appellant)

¶11

vs.

¶12

S.Vaigunthan

¶13

M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Salem Having Divisional Office No.1, T.P Hub, No.10-A, Ranga Building, Peramanur Main Road, Near Four Road, Peramanur, Salem - 636 007.

¶14

T.Bangaru ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 01.06.2022 in M.C.O.P.No.1028 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.

¶16

1/9

¶17

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

¶18

CMA.No.2079 of 2024

¶19

For Appellants : Mr.S.Nirmal Aditya For R2 : Mr.D.Venkatachalam

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1028 of 2021

¶22

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Judge, Salem. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of one Mahalingam, (the husband of the first claimant, father of the second claimant and son of the third respondent) in a road accident that took place on 02.02.2020.

¶23

The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :

¶24

On 02.02.2020, Mahalingam (deceased) was riding a two

¶25

wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-83-T-6171 on Thirupathur - Thiruvannamalai Main Road. When he was nearing Jammanapudur X Road at about 13.00 hours, another two wheeler bearing Registration number TN-23-AT-8076 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent hit the two wheeler, driven by Mahalingam (deceased) as a result of which, Mahalingam fell down and sustained injuries. He was immediately rushed to the Government Hospital,

¶26

2/9

¶27

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

¶28

CMA.No.2079 of 2024

¶29

Thirupathur from where he was referred to the Government Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri. However, he succumbed to injuries on 07.02.2020.

¶30

According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing Registration Number TN-23-AT-8076 was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the owner and the insurer of the two wheeler are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶31

The first respondent remained absent and was set ex parte

¶32

in the Tribunal. The second respondent resisted the claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶33

The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, awarded

¶34

3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

CMA.No.2079 of 2024

¶36

a compensation of Rs.14,05,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, vide its orders dated 01.06.2022. The Tribunal also held that the liability of the respondents 1 and 2 are joint and several.

¶37

Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants / claimants have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking for enhancement of compensation amount.

¶38

Heard Mr.S.Nirmal Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the

¶39

appellants, Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶40

In the claim petition, it is contended that the deceased was working as a tailor earning a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-. It is pertinent to point out that the accident took place in the year 2020 and in the facts and circumstances, this Court is of

¶41

4/9

¶42

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

¶43

CMA.No.2079 of 2024

¶44

the opinion that fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased at

¶45

Rs.15,000/- would meet the ends of justice. As per the decision of the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601 , 40% should be added towards future prospects of the deceased. Since there are three dependents, 1/3 rd of the deceased's income should be deducted towards his personal expenses. The proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 16 as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶46

Calculation :

¶47

Notional Income = Rs.15,000/-

¶48

40% Future Prospects = Rs.6,000/-

¶49

Total = Rs.15,000/- + Rs.6,000/- = Rs.21,000/-

¶50

After 1/3 deduction = Rs.14,000/-

¶51

Loss of dependency :

¶52

= Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 16

¶53

= Rs.26,88,000/-

¶54

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/and Rs.15,000/- for Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral

¶55

5/9

¶56

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

¶57

CMA.No.2079 of 2024

¶58

Expenses respectively as per the decision in National Insurance Co. vs

¶59

Pranay sethi and others (cited supra). T hus, the claimants are entitled to a

¶60

total compensation of Rs .28,38,000/ - ( 26,88,000 + 1,20,000 + 15,000 +

¶61

15,000= 28,38,000) which is extracted here under.

¶62

*S.No.*	*Head*	*Amount granted* *by this court*
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs. 26,88,000/-
2.	Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 3)	Rs.1,20,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-
Total		Rs. 28,38,000/-

¶63

9. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

¶64

from Rs.14,05,000 /- to Rs.28,38,000/- which would carry interest at the

¶65

rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶66

10. In the result,

¶67

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

¶68

ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

¶69

Rs.14,05,000 /- to Rs.28,38,000/-.

¶70

6/9

¶71

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

¶72

CMA.No.2079 of 2024

¶73

iii.

¶74

iii. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.

¶75

iv. The first respondent and the second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited are directed to deposit the compensation amount i.e., Rs.28,38,000/- (less the amount already deposited) jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1028 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.

¶76

v. On such deposit being made, the appellants / claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same as per the orders passed by the Tribunal after

¶77

7/9

¶78

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

¶79

CMA.No.2079 of 2024

¶80

following due process of law. The ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal shall be kept intact. However, it is made clear that the appellants are not entitled for interest for the period of delay in filing this appeal on the amount enhanced by this Court.

¶81

07.08.2024

¶82

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mtl

¶83

¶84

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.

¶85

M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Salem Having Divisional Office No.1, T.P Hub, No.10-A, Ranga Building, Peramanur Main Road, Near Four Road, Peramanur, Salem - 636 007.

¶86

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶87

R.HEMALATHA, J. mtl

¶88

8/9

¶89

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

¶90

CMA.No.2079 of 2024

¶91

C.M.A.No.2079 of 2024

¶92

07.08.2024 (2/3)

¶93

9/9

¶94

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

Sivasakthi v. S.Vaigunthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivasakthi v. S.Vaigunthan

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

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited Vs Mohan Babu

N.Dhinakaran Vs Sundaram Fasteners Limited

The Branch Manager Vs Sambath

Nandini Vs M/S. Poppys Art

Deepa Vs K.Palaniswamy

Sundaram Vs Lingala Narasimha Reddy