Partly allowed

Dhanalatchumi v. G.Thirumal

Madras HC9 Aug 2024CMA/586/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellants' appeal partly, enhancing the motor accident compensation from Rs. 19,62,500 to Rs. 25,92,500. The court fixed the deceased's notional income at Rs. 15,000 per month, applied 25% for future prospects, and used a multiplier of 14, deducting one-fourth for personal expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 19,62,500 to Rs. 25,92,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Dhanalatchumi Vs G.Thirumal — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMA.No.586 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

C.M.A.No.586 of 2023

¶7

Dhanalatchumi

¶8

K.Vignesh

¶9

Minor. R.Vidhya

¶10

Minor. R.Ramya

¶11

Indhirani

¶12

... Appellants

¶13

(Minor appellants 3 and 4 represented by their Next friend / Guardian mother Dhanalatchumi, first appellant)

¶14

vs.

¶15

G.Thirumal

¶16

The Manager,

¶17

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, II Floor, Shaw Wallace Building, No.154, Thambu Chetty Street, Parry's Corner, Chennai - 600 001. ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 11.08.2022 in M.C.O.P.No.1054 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Villupuram.

¶19

1/9

¶20

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

¶21

CMA.No.586 of 2023

¶22

For Appellants : Ms.Ramya V.Rao For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1054 of 2019

¶25

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Judge, Villupuram. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Kuppan, (the husband of the first claimant, father of the claimants 2 to 4 and son of the fifth claimant) in a road accident that took place on 15.10.2019.

¶26

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

¶27

On 15.10.2019, Kuppan (deceased) was travelling as a pillion

¶28

rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration Number TN-15-B-9812 near J.J. Grounds, Villupuram and at about 21.20 hours a speeding Maruti

¶29

Dzire Car bearing Registration Number TN-22-BS-9438, belonging to the first respondent hit the two wheeler, driven by Kuppan (deceased) as a

¶30

2/9

¶31

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

¶32

CMA.No.586 of 2023

¶33

result of which, Kuppan fell down and died on the spot.

¶34

According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of

¶35

the driver of the Maruti Dzire Car bearing Registration Number TN-22BS-9438 was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, the owner and the insurer of the car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them.

¶36

In the Tribunal, the first respondent remained absent and

¶37

was set ex parte . The second respondent resisted the claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶38

The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, awarded

¶39

a compensation of Rs.19,62,500/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, vide

¶40

its orders dated 11.08.2022.

¶41

3/9

¶42

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

¶43

CMA.No.586 of 2023

¶44

Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

¶45

Tribunal, the appellants / claimants have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶46

Heard Ms.Ramya V.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

¶47

appellants and Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶48

In the claim petition, it is contended that the deceased was a

¶49

bus conductor in a private concern earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.11,000/-. I t is pertinent to point out that the accident took place in the year 2019 and in the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased at 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 , 25% should be added towards future prospects of the deceased. Since there are five

¶50

4/9

¶51

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

¶52

CMA.No.586 of 2023

¶53

dependents, 1/4th of the deceased's income should be deducted towards

¶54

his personal expenses. The proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 14 as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and others vs.

¶55

Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶56

Calculation :

¶57

Notional Income = Rs.15,000/-

¶58

25% Future Prospects = Rs.3,750/-

¶59

Total = Rs.15,000/- + Rs.3,750/- = Rs.18,750/-

¶60

Loss of dependency :

¶61

= Rs.18,750/- x 12 x 14 x 3/4 = Rs.23,62,500/-

¶62

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/-

¶63

and Rs.15,000/- for Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses respectively as per the decision in National Insurance Co. vs

¶64

Pranay sethi and others (cited supra). T hus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 25,92,500 /- ( 23,62,500 + 2,00,000 + 15,000 + 15,000= 25,92,500 ) which is extracted here under.

¶65

5/9

¶66

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

¶67

CMA.No.586 of 2023

¶68

*S.No.*	*Head*	*Amount granted* *by this court*
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs. 23,62,500/-
2.	Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 5)	Rs.2,00,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-
Total		Rs. 25,92,500/-

¶69

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

¶70

from Rs.19,62,500 /- to Rs.25,92,500/- which would carry interest at the

¶71

rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶72

10. In the result,

¶73

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

¶74

ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

¶75

Rs.19,62,500 /- to Rs.25,92,500/-.

¶76

iii. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay court fee for the

¶77

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.

¶78

iv. The second respondent, the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance

¶79

6/9

¶80

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

¶81

CMA.No.586 of 2023

¶82

Company Limited is directed to deposit the compensation amount i.e., Rs.25,92,500/- (less the amount already deposited) 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.1054 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Villupuram.

¶83

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 following due process of law. The ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal shall be kept intact.

¶84

09.08.2024

¶85

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

¶86

7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶87

CMA.No.586 of 2023

¶88

¶89

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Villupuram.

¶90

The Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, II Floor, Shaw Wallace Building, No.154, Thambu Chetty Street, Parry's Corner, Chennai - 600 001.

¶91

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

¶92

8/9

¶93

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

CMA.No.586 of 2023

R.HEMALATHA, J.

mtl

C.M.A.No.586 of 2023

09.08.2024

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

Dhanalatchumi v. G.Thirumal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalatchumi v. G.Thirumal

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

N. Suresh (died) 1. Chitra Vs S.Senthilkumar

The Divisional Manager Vs Geetha

The Branch Manager Vs R.Sekhar

Kamatchi Vs The Managing Director

The Branch Manager Vs Sambath

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sudha