Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 735 (MAD)

Kanimozhi v. Murugan

2022-03-24

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the award, dated 24.01.2017, passed in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.) 1. The claim petitioners are the appellants herein seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 2013 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The factum of the accident, the manner of the accident, rash andnegligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle which is insured with the second respondent herein are not disputed in this appeal and hence, the finding rendered by the Tribunal in this regard is here by confirmed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants / claim petitioners would contend that the notional income arrived at by the Tribunal is erroneous and as per the decision rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. PranaySethi and Others reported in 2017(16) SCC 680 , the claim petitioners areentitled to 50% towards future prospects and deduction of 1/3 ought to have been 1/4 and consortium has to be granted. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent /Insurance Company would contend that the rash and negligence on thepart of the deceased is not considered by the Tribunal. 6. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the said issue raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance Company. 7. The Insurance Company has not filed any appeal challenging the manner of accident or finding of the Tribunal that the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased and the Tribunal has rendered a finding that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent herein, which is insured with the second respondent herein. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent insurance company would contend that the accident is invited by the deceased himself. The first claim petitioner is examined herself as P.W.1 and the other co-rider of the two wheeler is examined as P.W.2 and he has deposed about the manner of the accidnet. R.W.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent insurance company would contend that the accident is invited by the deceased himself. The first claim petitioner is examined herself as P.W.1 and the other co-rider of the two wheeler is examined as P.W.2 and he has deposed about the manner of the accidnet. R.W.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. It remains to be stated that Ex.P.1 First Information Report is filed against P.W.1 and after taking note of the admissions in the cross-examination of R.W.1, I have no hesitation to hold that this description of manner of the accident is only a self-serving statement in order to save his skin from the criminal prosecution. On the contrary, the evidence of P.W.2 is found to be reliable and trustworthy, besides he is also co-injured in the accident and hence, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence of P.W.2 and accepted the same and has recorded the reason for rejecting the evidenc of R.W.1. The finding of the Tribunal that accident has taken place due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the first respondent is well-considered and well-merited,does not require any interference from this Court in the absence of any irregularity or illegality. The Tribunal has also recorded reasons fordisbeliving R.W.1 that is discussed supra and hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the first respondent vehicle, is hereby confirmed, for different reasoning as extracted supra. Consequently, the plea of the learned counsel for the second respondent counsel is hereby negatived. 9. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the parents along with the widow and minor daughter. The deceased is aged about 28years at the time of accident. He is said to have been working in Raju Spinning Mills at Rajapalayam. To substantiate the said plea, they have filed Ex.P8, S.S.L.C. Certificate. B.Sc. and M.Sc. Certificates are marked as Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16. Computer Training Certificates are marked as Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18. The deceased is aged about 28years at the time of accident. He is said to have been working in Raju Spinning Mills at Rajapalayam. To substantiate the said plea, they have filed Ex.P8, S.S.L.C. Certificate. B.Sc. and M.Sc. Certificates are marked as Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16. Computer Training Certificates are marked as Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18. In connection with the alleged avocationand place of avocation, P.W.4, Ganesan was examined and markedEx.P.25, Authorisation Letter issued to P.W.4, Raju Spinning Mills at Rajapalayam, who deposed on their behalf and attendance register maintained in the usual course of business by the employer of the deceased, namely, Raju Spinning Mills at Rajapalayam for the month of July, 2013 is marked as Ex.P.26, so also Pay Acquittance Register of Raju Spinning Mills at Rajapalayam for the month of July, 2013 is marked asEx.P.27. As per the said documents, the deceased was earningRs.13,000/- per mensum and I find that by virtue of the authorization given under Ex.P.25, P.W.4 deposed regarding the nature of the job carried out by the deceased in Raju Spinning Mills and also earning salary of Rs.13,000/- per mensum and hence, I find that as per Ex.P11,Pay Certificate, he was earning a sum of Rs.13,000/- at the time of accident. 10. By virtue of the authorisation letter, under Ex.P.25, I also find that P.W.4, Ganesan, Supervisor, is competent to depose regarding the nature of employment of the deceased and the salary there for. Accordingly, this Court holds that the deceased was employed with thesaid Raju Spinning Mills at Rajapalayam and was earning Rs.13,000/-.The contra finding recorded by the Tribunal is hereby set aside for the reasons stated supra and hence for the purpose of calculation, as per the decision rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017(16) SCC 680 , the claim petitioners are entitled for50% of the future prospects and hence, the monthly income is fixed atRs.19,500/- (13,000 + 6,500 = 19,500). As per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017(16) SCC 680 , the claim petitioners are entitled for50% of the future prospects and hence, the monthly income is fixed atRs.19,500/- (13,000 + 6,500 = 19,500). As per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier is fixed at 18 and therefore, taking into consideration the number of dependants being 4 in number,1/4th amount has to be deducted and hence, the pecuniary loss sustained by the claim petitioners are reassessed as under: Notional income = Rs.13,000/- 50% Future Prospects = Rs.6,500/- Total = Rs.13,000 + Rs.6,500 = Rs.19,500/- Loss of dependency = Rs.19,500 X 12 X 18 - 1/4 deduction = Rs.31,59,000/- 11. Apart from the above amount, the first claim petitioner is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards spouse consortium. The amount awarded towards loss of love and affection for the claims petitioners2 to 4 cannot be sustainable and hence, awarding of Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of love and affection to the claims petitioners 2 to 4, is here by set aside and the claim petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are entitled toRs.1,20,000/- [40,000 x 3 = 1,20,000] towards loss of love and affection. 12. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.180 of2013 is modified as follows:- Sl. No. Particulars Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of dependency Rs.13,82,400/- Rs.31,59,000/- 2 Loss of Consortium to the first appellant Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to the appellants 2 to 4 Rs. 1,00,000 /- Rs. 1,20,000 /- 4 Funeral Expenses Rs. 22,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 5 Transport Expenses --- Rs. 15,000/- 6 Loss of estate --- Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.15,54,400/- Rs.33,64,000/- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced fromRs.15,54,400/- to Rs.33,64,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of7.5% per annum. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced fromRs.15,54,000/- to Rs.33,64,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of7.5% per annum. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the Court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced fromRs.15,54,000/- to Rs.33,64,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of7.5% per annum. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the Court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee. The second respondent herein - National Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.33,64,000/- (if not already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit ofM.C.O.P.No.180 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made by the Insurance Company, the appellants 1, 3, and 4 herein are at liberty to withdraw the same, as apportioned by the Tribunal, after following due process of law. The second appellant herein is a minor, and therefore, her share of compensation amount is ordered to be deposited in any one of the nationalized bank until she attains majority and the first appellant is permitted to withdraw the interest directly from the bank, once in three months in order to maintain the minor. No costs.