Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1956 (MAD)

S. Yuvanathan v. S. Navaneetha Krishnan

2018-06-25

S.BASKARAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.Baskaran, J. The Appellants are the claimants before the Tribunal and has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. 2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a fatal case. The case of the Petitioners is that on 27.08.2007 while the deceased Ganthamani was proceeding as Pillion rider in the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-38-AF-2551 driven by her husband, who is the 1st petitioner herein, while going in the Avinasi Road, near P.S.G.Technology Institute, the 2nd respondent bus bearing Reg.No.TN-33-N-1623 came at high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased was driving, causing her fatal injuries, resulting in her death subsequently in the hospital. The Petitioners who are the husband and children of the deceased contend that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the 2nd respondent's bus driver, who is the 1st respondent herein. The deceased was aged 46 years and was a home maker. Thus, the Petitioners sought for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents. 3. On the other hand, both the respondents remained exparte before the Tribunal. As such, considering the evidence let in by the Petitioners through P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as documents produced as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15, the Tribunal found negligence of the 1st respondent driver alone resulted in the accident, passed an award for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- payable by the respondents to the Petitioner. 4. Being not satisfied with the quantum of the award granted by the tribunal, the Petitioners/claimants have come forward with the present appeal. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contend that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence let in by the Petitioners properly. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. The multiplier was not applied properly. The amount awarded under different heads is very nominal. Thus, the Petitioners/claimants sought for enhancement of the award amount by entertaining the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Corporation contend that the accident does not occur due to negligence of the 1st respondent and as such, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. The amount awarded under different heads is very nominal. Thus, the Petitioners/claimants sought for enhancement of the award amount by entertaining the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Corporation contend that the accident does not occur due to negligence of the 1st respondent and as such, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal itself considering the status of the deceased as a home maker, passed an award which is just and reasonable. Therefore, the 2nd respondent contends that there is no need to modify the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. This is only quantum appeal. It is admitted by both sides that the deceased Ganthamani was home maker. According to the appellants/claimants, on the occurrence day (27.08.2007), the deceased was proceeding in the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-38-AF-2551 along with her husband from their house to the Hospital, wherein, the 2nd Petitioner was admitted. At that point of time, the 2nd respondent bus bearing Reg.No.TN-33-AN-1623 driven by the 1st respondent came at high speed and dashed on the two wheeler driven by the 1st Petitioner causing fatal injuries to the deceased. To prove the same, the Petitioners produced the copy of FIR registered by the Police as Ex.P.1. The contents of the same clearly corroborate the version of P.W.1, who is the husband of the deceased and eyewitness to the occurrence. 9. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent has not come forward to contest the matter before the Tribunal and remained exparte. As such, no contra evidence is available on record to contradict the claim of the Petitioners. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal on the basis of P.W.1 oral evidence and contents of Ex.P.1-FIR that the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the 2nd respondent bus alone caused the accident is just and proper. 10. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record found the age of the deceased was 46 years, passed a lumpsum award of Rs.2,25,000/- without providing for specific amounts under different heads. This according to the Petitioners/claimants is not proper. 11. The learned counsel for the Petitioners/appellants/claimants contends that the deceased was a home maker and her contribution to the family maintenance and day to day affairs is to be taken into consideration for fixing the notional income. This according to the Petitioners/claimants is not proper. 11. The learned counsel for the Petitioners/appellants/claimants contends that the deceased was a home maker and her contribution to the family maintenance and day to day affairs is to be taken into consideration for fixing the notional income. As such, it will be appropriate to fix Rs.4000/- per month for the services rendered by the deceased to her family. The deceased was stated to be 46 years old and the same is evidenced by Ex.P.3-Post Mortem Report. For that age group, it will be appropriate to add 25% of the income towards future prospects. Considering the age of the deceased as 46 years, the correct multiplier to be applied is 13. Considering the number of dependants are three, 1/3rd income should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the calculation towards loss of dependency for the family of the deceased is as follows:- Monthly salary : 4000 25% additional towards future prospects : 1000 4000 + 1000 = Rs.5000 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses (Rs.5000/- x1/3 = 1666) (5000 1666 =3334) 3334 x 12 x 13 = Rs.5,20,104/-. Thus, a sum of Rs.5,20,104/- is awarded under the head Loss of dependency. 12. As per Ex.P.2, the appellants incurred Rs.48,073/- towards medical expenses and it will be appropriate to provide the same. Following the Apex Court Ruling reported in (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 2 TNMAC 609], the compensation towards conventional heads is as under:- Loss of dependency Rs.5.20,104/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/ Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 48,073/- Total Rs.6,38,177/- The apportionment of the award amount to the appellants is as under:- 1st Claimant 40% 2nd and 3rd Claimants 30% each 13. In the result, (i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Partly Allowed; (ii) The award amount is enhanced to Rs.6,38,177/- from Rs.2,25,000/-; (iii) The award amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realisation; (iv)The 2nd respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with proportionate interest and cost, as ordered by this court, less the amount, if any already deposited. (v)The appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amount of the award amount along with accrued interest. (v)The appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amount of the award amount along with accrued interest. The Tribunal shall pass necessary orders following the appropriate procedure for disbursal of the award amount. No costs.