Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 887 (MAD)

Rajamani v. M. Ravi

2023-03-07

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.10.2016 made in MCOP.No.354 of 2015 on the file of the MACT/III-Additional District cum Sessions Court at Gobichettipalayam.) 1. The Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.10.2016 made in MCOP.No.354 of 2015 on the file of the MACT/IIIAdditional District cum Sessions Court at Gobichettipalaya 2. The claim Petitioners are the Appellants herein and they filed this Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MCOP.No.354 of 2015 on the file of the MACT/III-Additional District cum Sessions Court at Gobichettipalayam. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The legal representatives of the deceased Kalliyappan filed MCOP.No.354 of 2015 on the file of the MACT/III-Additional District cum Sessions Court at Gobichettipalayam, seeking compensation and filed this Appeal on the point of quantum and ratio of negligence. 4. The factum of the accident and manner of the accident are not under challenge in this Appeal. Accordingly, the finding rendered by the trial Court in this regard are hereby confirmed. The negligence fixed by the Tribunal at the rate of 25 : 75 between the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle is specifically disputed in this Appeal. 5. During the trial, on the side of the claim Petitioners, PW1 & PW2 were 3/10 examined & Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked and on the side of the Respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was marked. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claim Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 7. The claim Petitioners have filed claim Petition seeking compensation for the death of the husband of the 1 st claim Petitioner in a road transport accident happened on 30.09.2014. In the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has taken a plea that due to the sudden crossing of the deceased in the junction of the road, he has invited the accident. The trial Court on consideration of Ex.P.3/rough sketch and evidence of PW2/occurrence witness come to a conclusion that the deceased had contributed 25% of negligence and the driver of the 1 st Respondent/offending vehicle had contributed 75% of negligence and accordingly rendered finding while granting the award. 8. The trial Court on consideration of Ex.P.3/rough sketch and evidence of PW2/occurrence witness come to a conclusion that the deceased had contributed 25% of negligence and the driver of the 1 st Respondent/offending vehicle had contributed 75% of negligence and accordingly rendered finding while granting the award. 8. Learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that at the time of the accident the deceased was consumed alcohol is found to be without any evidence and accordingly, the trial Court has rightly rejected the said contention. In the absence of any positive evidence to show that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol, while crossing the road, the said finding rendered by the trial Court does not warrant any interference. From the answer elicited in PW2''s evidence, it appears that the deceased had suddenly crossed the road at the junction, and hence the Trial Court had fixed 25% negligence on the part of the deceased. Taking into consideration the evidence adduced before the Court and Ex.P.1/FIR and also taking note of Ex.P.3/rough sketch, this Court is of the considered view to reduce the contributory negligence fixed on the deceased at 10% and hence, the negligence fixed on the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle is fixed as 10:90. 9. On the point of quantum of compensation, notional income of Rs.7,000/- was fixed by the Tribunal, since the deceased was aged about 44 years at the time of the accident. As per Ex.P9/VAO certificate, the notional income of the deceased is enhanced to Rs.12,000/-. The deceased is said to be 44 years at the time of the accident and therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others .Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), right multiplier is “14” for the age of the deceased and as per the Constitution Bench''s judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), 25% has to be added towards future prosepcts. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the same is hereby confirmed and hence, the pecuniary loss sustained by the claim Petitioners are re-assessed as follows: Rs.12,000/- x 25 % of 12000 = Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 14 x 2/3 = Rs.16,80,000/- 10. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the same is hereby confirmed and hence, the pecuniary loss sustained by the claim Petitioners are re-assessed as follows: Rs.12,000/- x 25 % of 12000 = Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 14 x 2/3 = Rs.16,80,000/- 10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards filial consortium, the same is reduced to Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards Loss of love and affection, the same is reduced to Rs.1,20,000/-, The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, the same are enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate S.NO Head Amount (Rs.) 1. Pecuniary loss 1680000 2. Loss of consortium 40000 3. Loss Love and affection 120000 4. Funeral expenses 15000 5. Loss of Estate 15000 6. Transportation 15000 Total 1885000 90% of compensation 1696500 In total, the claim Petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.16,96,500/- (Rupees sixteen lakh ninety six thousand and five hundred only). 11. In fine, (i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,86,750/- to Rs.16,96,500/- to the extent indicated above. No Costs. (ii) the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount, with interest and costs before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) on such deposit being made, all the claim Petitioners/Appellants are entitled to get their share in the enhanced award amount, as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal. The claim Petitioners are permitted to withdraw their entire share with proportionate interest and costs, less the award amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. (iv) the claim Petitioners 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.