Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1113 (MAD)

Rajamurthy v. Kandasamy

2020-07-28

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2016 passed in M.C.O.P. No.414 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, II Additional District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.) 1. The judgment and decree dated 18.08.2016 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, II Additional District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry in M.C.O.P. No.414 of 2014 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal mainly on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. 2. The accident occurred on 30.03.2014 at about 01.30 P.M. at Pathukannu Villaianur Main Road near Bus Stop, Ulavaikal, Villianur, Pondicherry. The Puducherry Traffic Police Station registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2014. The victim died due to multiple injuries. The claim petition was filed by the father of the deceased. 3. The Tribunal tried the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the parties to the accident claim. The Tribunal arrived a conclusion that PW-1 has produced the copy of FIR Ex.P-1 and as per the FIR, the accident occurred on 30.03.2014 at about 13.30 hours. It is stated that the driver of the car was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, he alone is responsible for the accident. The said fact corroborates with the oral evidence of PW-2. On the side of the second respondent, there was negligence on the part of the rider and they travelled as triples, which is an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. RW-1 has stated that the rider of the deceased’s motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-BD-2675 with two pillion rider driven the vehicle in a rash manner without wearing helmet. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent-driver and not due to the negligence of the deceased driver. The first respondent-driver was having proper driving license at the time of accident as the vehicle was covered under the Insurance Policy. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the award of compensation is improper in view of the fact that the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the monthly income of the deceased person. The first respondent-driver was having proper driving license at the time of accident as the vehicle was covered under the Insurance Policy. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the award of compensation is improper in view of the fact that the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the monthly income of the deceased person. The deceased person was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and was a final year Engineering student. Therefore the award of Rs.4,50,000/- as total compensation is inadequate and not in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. 6. The appellants/claimants produced all the documents to establish that the deceased was a final year Engineering student and therefore, the award of compensation is lesser than that of the entitlement of the claimants. 7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased, being a final year Engineering student, the monthly income is to be taken as Rs.10,000/- per month and 40% is to be added towards future prospects i.e., Rs.10,000+Rs.4,000=Rs.14,000/-. The deceased, being a bachelor, the deduction shall be half (½) i.e., Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, the deceased’s annual income would be Rs.7,000 x 12 = Rs.84,000/- and accordingly multiplier 18 is to be adopted. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting the one third deduction of personal expenses and the multiplier 16 is also inapplicable as far as the present case is concerned. 8. Thus, this Court is inclined to modify the award regarding fixation of monthly income and adding of future prospects. Accordingly, the compensation granted is to be re-calculated in the following manner:- Rs. Pecuniary Loss [(multiplier 18 x Rs.84,000/- (Rs. Rs.7,000/- x 12)] 15,12,000.00 Love and Affection 40,000.00 Funeral Expenses 15,000.00 Loss of Estate 15,000.00 15,82,000.00 Thus, the award of compensation by the Tribunal as Rs.4,50,000/- is enhanced to Rs.15,82,000/-. The appellants/claimants are entitled for the accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum for the enhanced Award amount from the date of claim petition till payment. 9. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,82,000/-. The appellants/claimants are entitled for the accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum for the enhanced Award amount from the date of claim petition till payment. 9. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,82,000/-. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5%, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount by filing appropriate applications before the Tribunal and the payments are to be made only through RTGS. The appellants/claimants are liable to pay additional court fee for the enhanced compensation. 10. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2016 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, II Additional District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry in M.C.O.P. No.414 of 2014 stands modified and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.15,82,000/-. Consequently, the C.M.A.No.4291 of 2019 stands allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs.