P. Chinnammal v. R.Nargunavathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH 1.P.Chinnammal 2.K.Revathi 3.P.Velusamy ..Petitioners/Appellants .Vs.
1.R.Nargunavathi 2.M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Swarnambikai Plaza S.F.No.6/5-Plot No.7 Ward-C, Omalur Main Raod New Bus Stand Salem-636009.
..Respondents/Respondents Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to enhance the compensation amount and fix entire liability on the 2nd respondent made in judgment and decree dated 24.7.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal District Judge, Salem, by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 1/6
For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Jayaraj for [R2] No appearance for [R1]
JUDGMENT
The claimant not being satisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Salem, in MCOP.No.17 of 2019, dated 24.7.2020, has filed this claim petition seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2.On 28.5.2017 at about 6.00 pm, the deceased was driving a moped on the Salem to Namakkal NH 7 Road. The rider of the Hero Honda bike drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle that was driven by the deceased and caused the accident. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The deceased died leaving behind his wife, married daughter and a son. It is under these circumstances, the claimants have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking for compensation.
3.The Tribunal came to a conclusion that the 1st respondent had driven the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner. However, since the deceased had suddenly crossed the road in his moped, the Tribunal had attributed 20% contributory negligence against the deceased and 80% negligence on the offending vehicle driven by the 1st respondent. That apart, the Tribunal had also attributed 2/6
15% contributory negligence on the ground that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. The Tribunal ultimately fixed the total compensation payable at Rs.5,41,715/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Not being satisfied with the compensation fixed by the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed before this Court seeking for enhancement of compensation by the claimants. 4.Heard Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.M.Jayaraj, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and there is no appearance either in person or through on behalf of the 1st respondent.
5.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. This Court has also carefully gone through the award passed by the Tribunal.
6.In the considered view of this Court, the Tribunal attributing 20% contributory negligence on the deceased is well reasoned. On carefully considering the evidence of RW.1, it is seen that the deceased had suddenly crossed the road in his moped. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal by attributing 20% contributory negligence on the deceased does not require the interference of the Court. 3/6
7.Insofar as attributing 15% contributory negligence for not wearing the helmet, this Court holds that already 20% contributory negligence has been put against the deceased and to add another 15% for not wearing helmet will not be reasonable and it will substantially bring down the compensation that is payable to the claimants. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that an additional 15% must be attributed against the deceased towards contributory negligence for not wearing the helmet. 8.There is yet another head under which the compensation was fixed and which requires the interference of this Court. That pertains to the head of loss of income. The Tribunal has taken the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7500/- pm.
The deceased was eking his livelihood by working as a coolie in a poultry farm. Considering the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 2017, it will be more reasonable to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- pm. If 10% is added towards future prospective, the total income will come to Rs.13,200/- pm. By applying this income, if the compensation is calculated, it will workout to a sum of Rs.17,42,400/- [Rs.13,200 x 12 x 11]. Out of this, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the balance 2/3rd will go to the claimants. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.11,61,600/- will go in favour of the claimants [Rs.17,42,400 x 2/3].
9.In the light of the above discussion, the compensation payable to the claimants is fixed as follows:
Sl.No. Compensation awarded under the head Amount (in Rs.) 1.
Loss of income [(12,000 + 1,200) x 12 x 11 x 2/3] Rs.11,61,600/- 2.
Loss of love and affection (Rs.10,000 x 3) Rs. 30,000/- 3.
Loss of consortium for the 1st claimant Rs. 20,000/- 4.
Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- 5.
Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.12,31,600/- Less: 20% contributory negligence 12,31,600 x 20/100 Rs. 2,46,320/- Total Rs. 9,85,280/- 10.In the result, the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,41,715/- to Rs.9,85,280/- and the enhanced amount is payable by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The manner in which the compensation amount has to be paid has already been indicated in the award passed by the Tribunal and the same is hereby reiterated. 5/6
N. ANAND VENKATESH., J KP This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 03.04.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order KP To Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal District Judge, Salem.
Copy to:- The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Chennai.
6/6