Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Muthukani vs K.Dhanasekaran on 1 August, 2022

Author: P.T.Asha

Bench: P.T.Asha

                                                                               C.M.A.No.1259 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 01.08.2022

                                                        CORAM :

                                      THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
                                               C.M.A.No.1259 of 2022

                1. Muthukani.
                2. Annaraj.
                3. Minor Alpha Jerik.
                   (Minor petitioner represented by his
                   mother/1st appellant as natural guardian and
                   next friend)
                                                                                   ... Appellants
                                                         Versus
                1. K.Dhanasekaran.
                2. A.Priscilla Mary.
                3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
                   Motor Third Party Claims,
                   No.232, Bombay Mutual Building,
                   6th Floor, N.S.C. Bose Road,
                   Chennai 600 001.
                                                                                 ... Respondents

                Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award against the judgment and decree
                dated 04.10.2021 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.7559 of 2018 on the file of the
                Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.


                                       For Appellants     : Ms.A.Subadra
                                       For Respondents : Notice dispensed with vide
                                                         Order dated 13.07.2022 for R1 and R2
                                                         Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, for R3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/5
                                                                                 C.M.A.No.1259 of 2022



                                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioners before the tribunal are the appellants herein, seeking enhancement of the compensation that has been granted.

2. The petitioners had filed a claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.7559 of 2018 seeking compensation for the death of one Omega Jerin, the daughter of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the sister of the 3 rd petitioner. The said Omega Jerin was aged about 3½ years and doing her lower kinder garden. She had died in a road accident on 04.11.2018, while she was walking from the A.G. Church, 200 feet road, Pallikarani, towards the parking area of the church with her father. At that time, a car bearing registration No.TN-85-6806, belonging to the first and second respondent, driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed the father of the deceased and the car ran over the deceased Omega Jerin. She was immediately rushed to the Hospital but was however declared dead on entry.

3. The petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs.40 Lakhs as compensation. The third respondent/insurance company had contested the case and the respondents 1 and 2 their insured had been set ex-parte. The third respondent/insurance company would submit that the compensation claimed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5 C.M.A.No.1259 of 2022 was on the higher side and that apart, the car belonging to the first and second respondent did not possess a valid policy, registration certificate and permit. The Insurance Company has also questioned as to whether the second respondent had a valid driving license. The Tribunal ultimately held negligence on the second respondent who was driving the car at that point of time and directed the third respondent/insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.7,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Forty Thousand Only) as compensation for the death of said Omega Jerin. The Tribunal had arrived at a notional income of Rs.5,000/- to which future prospects of 40% was added and thereafter deducting 50% towards personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 15 arrived at compensation of Rs.6,30,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Thirty Thousand Only). The tribunal has awarded compensation under the heads of Loss of estate, love and affection and funeral expenses. Challenging the award, in as much as the quantum was low, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either sides.

4. Considering the age of the minor and the year of accident, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) could be taken as the annual income. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5 C.M.A.No.1259 of 2022 Thousand Only) would be available to the family. To this, a multiplier of 15 shall be applied and the total loss of income would be a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only). In all other aspects the appeal is confirmed.

5. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

01.08.2022 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order nsa https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5 C.M.A.No.1259 of 2022 P.T.ASHA. J., nsa C.M.A.No.1259 of 2022 01.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5