Insurer appealed against award of Rs.30,94,000 in a fatal motor accident claim. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving based on eyewitness evidence, and declined to interfere with the notional income of Rs.20,000 fixed for a deceased Engineering Graduate.
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.
CMA.(MD)No.346 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 25/04/2024
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
CMA(MD)No.346 of 2021 and CMP(MD)No.2851 of 2021
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Palamoor Road, Opposite Anna Stadium, Nagercoil. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Mariamerkala 2.Xavierraj 3.Aneesraj : R1 to R3/Petitioners 4.Padmanabadoss : 4th Respondent/R1 (R4 is not a necessary party for adjudication : Notice dispensed with)
PRAYER: -Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under
section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment, dated 29/08/2019 made in MCOP No.1132 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For 4th Respondent : Dispensed with
1/8
CMA.(MD)No.346 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the decree and judgment, dated 29/08/2019 made in MCOP No.1132 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Tirunelveli.
2. The facts in brief :-
On 21/02/2015 at about 08.40 pm, when the deceased
namely Abisraj was driving his mother cycle bearing Engine No.DKZCFK92015 on the Thingal Nagar to Kulachal main road from east to west direction, at that time, the first respondent vehicle bearing registration No.TN-74A-7306 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner on the south-north direction entered into the main road and hit the motor cycle. In that process, the deceased sustained multiple injuries. On the way to the hospital, he died. Over the occurrence, a case in Crime No.73 of 2015 was registered for the offences under section 304(A) IPC and 187 of MV Act by the Colachal Police Station. Seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- by the dependants, the claim petition was filed.
3.That was resisted by the 1st respondent in the claim petition stating that the vehicle which belongs to him did not involve in the occurrence. It is also stated
2/8
CMA.(MD)No.346 of 2021
that the deceased hit the parked vehicle bearing registration No.TN-75-F-8426. So according to him, his vehicle was not involved in the occurrence.
4.The second respondent, who is the appellant herein stated that the deceased is not having any proper driving licence, he alone contributed towards the occurrence. The vehicle mentioned in the petition is not involved in the occurrence. He supported the contention raised by the petitioner.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants,
two witnesses were examined and 10 documents marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, 3 witnesses were examined and 3 documents marked.
6.At the conclusion of the enquiry process, the
Tribunal found that the occurrence occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and awarded a total compensation of 30,94,000/-.
7.Regarding the first issue of negligence, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-74-A-7306 was involved in the
3/8
CMA.(MD)No.346 of 2021
occurrence. It was taken to the Regional Transport Office, Marthandam for inspection.
8.The first respondent was examined as RW1. The relevant portion was extracted by the Tribunal. Wherein it is admitted by him that Crime No.73 of 2015 was registered against the driver of his vehicle. Now the case is pending before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eranial.
9.The driver was examined as RW2. He has stated that on the particular time and date of occurrence he parked his vehicle on the Cholacal Tempo stand.
10.The eye witness to the occurrence was examined as RW3. He has also stated that the first respondent vehicle hit the two wheeler, which was driven by the deceased. In turn, due to the impact the two wheeler hit the stationed Lorry TN-75-F-8426.
11.From the evidence of RW3, who is the eye witness, it is seen that the occurrence took place only because of the hitting by the first respondent's vehicle. Consequently the two wheeler hit on the back side of the stationed vehicle. So, the main reason for the occurrence
4/8
CMA.(MD)No.346 of 2021
is the first respondent vehicle. When there is hitting behind, naturally the offending vehicle driver takes the responsibility. So the manner in which the occurrence took place clearly indicates the rash and negligent on the first respondent vehicle driver. So, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that only the first respondent vehicle involved in the occurrence and the occurrence took place because of the first respondent vehicle driver requires no interference.
12.Regarding the compensation amount, the Tribunal
took note of the fact that the deceased was an Engineering Graduate. On that account, it fixed the notional income at Rs.20,000/- per month. This portion of the fixation is objected by the appellant stating that it is on the higher side.
13.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal ought to have fixed Rs. 15,000/- as notional income.
14.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the following judgments viz., (1)Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A.Senthilkumar (2021(1)TN MAC 805 (DB); (2)Royal Sundaram Alliance
5/8
CMA.(MD)No.346 of 2021
Insurance Company Limited, Chennai & others Vs. S.K.Vijayakumar and others (CDJ 2024 MHC 143); and (3)New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mettupalayam, Annapurna Buildings, Coimbatore District Vs. Karuppiah and others (CMA(MD)No.476 of 2023, dated 05/01/2024) to impress upon the Court that for a young Engineer, uniform notional income is fixed by the Court is Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.
15.Here, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at Rs.20,000/-. Fixing the notional income is always guess work. The Courts have to fix the notional income on the basis of the guess work. As mentioned above, unless the appellate is able to convince this court that that portion of the fixation made by the Tribunal suffers from any illegality, this Appellate court cannot interfere.
16.The amount has been fixed at the discretion of the Tribunal. I find no reason to interfere into that portion. Considering the age of the deceased normally even a daily wager will get Rs.600 to Rs.800/- per day. So an Engineering Graduate would have earned much more in a properly placed job. So the fixation of Rs.20,000/- as notional income is reasonable. I find no reason to interferes into that portion.
6/8
CMA.(MD)No.346 of 2021
17.In respect of other categories, no objection is made by the appellant. So the other categories of compensation also requires no interference.
18.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25/04/2024
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er
To,
7/8
CMA.(MD)No.346 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
CMA(MD)No.346 of 2021
25/04/2024
8/8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's finding of negligence against the TN-74-A-7306 vehicle required interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagercoil
Mariamerkala
Xavierraj
Aneesraj
Padmanabadoss
G.Ilangovan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
