Madras High Court
P.Saravanan vs Oriental Structural Engineering ... on 19 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MAD 70
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 14.12.2020
Pronounced On 19.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
(Through Video Conferencing)
P.Saravanan ... Appellant in
C.M.A.No.2040/2013
1.Andal
2.Sellammal
3.Periyasamy ... Appellants in
C.M.A.No.2041/2013
M.Ramesh ... Appellant in
C.M.A.No.2042/2013
Vs.
1.Oriental Structural Engineering Pvt.Ltd.,
Thenkunnam,
Eraiyur Village, Ulundurpet Taluk.
2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
115, Prakasam Road,
Broadway, Chennai-1. ... Respondents in
all C.M.As.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 26
C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Common Judgments and separate Decrees
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court)
Vridhachalam in M.C.O.P.Nos.54 to 56 of 2011 dated 21.08.2012.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar (in all C.M.As.)
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.Vinod (in all C.M.As.)
COMMON JUDGMENT
By this common Judgment, all the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the respective claimants against the common Judgment and separate Decrees dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Court) Virudhachalam in M.C.O.P.Nos.54 to 56 of 2011, are being disposed.
2. By the impugned common Judgment and separate Decrees, the Tribunal has awarded the below mentioned compensation together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the respective claimants who are the respective appellants in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 2 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
3. For better understanding of the case, the following table will be useful for describing the parties and the compensation awarded:-
Award amount S1.No Name of the after deducting appellants/claimants C.M.A.No. M.C.O.P.No. the contributory negligence 1 P.Saravanan 2040/2013 54/2011 Rs.1,10,125/- 2 P.Ramesh 2041/2013 55/2011 Rs.1,10,230/- 3 Andal and Others 2042/2013 56/2011 Rs.7,12,500/-
4. It is noticed that the name of the appellant in C.M.A.No.2041 of 2013 has been wrongly given as M.Ramesh instead of P.Ramesh as is evident from the claim petition filed by him and the impugned common Judgment and Decree passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is suo moto correcting the name of the appellant in C.M.A.No.2041 of 2013 as P.Ramesh.
5. In these appeals, the appellants/claimants have questioned the reasoning of the Tribunal in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Sankar who died in the accident on the ground that he drove the motorcycle on road which was blocked for widening purpose at ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 3 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 Thagamtheerthapuram diversion road in Vasudevanur by taking other appellants in C.M.A.Nos.2040 & 2041 of 2013 (P.Saravanan & P.Ramesh) as pillion riders.
6. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at the contributory negligence of the deceased Sankar is questioned primarily on the ground that the person who gave FIR, namely, Ramar was not examined to disprove the content of the FIR in Ex.P1. It is further submitted that as per Ex.P1 - FIR, the negligence was on the part of the driver of the insured Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-32-L-0163.
7. That apart, it is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded lesser amount towards disability on account of the injuries suffered by the appellants in C.M.A.Nos.2040 & 2041 of 2013 (P.Saravanan & P.Ramesh).
It is further submitted that the accident resulted in a fracture to left thigh, left knee and left leg of the appellant in C.M.A.No.2040 of 2013 (P.Saravanan) who was the second pillion rider who was assessed 55% disability by P.W.4 Doctor through whom Ex.P.21 Disability Certificate was marked. It is further submitted that similarly the appellant in ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 4 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 C.M.A.No.2041 of 2013 (P.Ramesh) lost his 2nd, 3rd,4th & 5th fingers of the left leg and was assessed 56% disability by the P.W.4 Doctor through whom Ex.P20 Disability Certificate was marked.
8. The appellants in C.M.A.No.2042 of 2013 are the wife and the parents of the deceased Sankar who drove the motorcycle. The Tribunal has concluded in the impugned Common Judgment that the deceased was holding international driving licence to drive the vehicles in foreign countries and had worked as a driver in Kuwait before the marriage and at the time of accident, he was driving the lorry in India. The Tribunal has considered a notional income of the deceased Sankar as Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal further concluded that as per the evidence of the 1st appellant in C.M.A.No.2042 of 2013, the deceased would have gone to the Kuwait if he had not met with the accident and died in the accident.
9. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards loss of consortium to the 1st appellant and filial consortium to the 2nd and 3rd appellants in C.M.A.No.2042 of 2013 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 5 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 Company Limited Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : 2018 OnLine SC 1546. That apart, it is submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his submission that the contribution negligence has to be inferred from facts:-
i. Mohammed Siddique and Another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others, 2020 (1) TN MAC 161 (SC).
ii. Thangammal and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, 2013 (2) TN MAC 861.
iii. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. K.Gnanaraj and Others, 2019 (2) TN MAC 444 (DB).
iv. Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jeyarani and Others, 2019 (1) TN MAC 356. v. S.Chinnaraj and Another Vs. Sureshkumar and Others, 2019 (1) TN MAC 189 (DB).
vi. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R.Vimala and Others, 2019 (1) TN MAC 672 (DB).
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 6 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
11. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company and the other facts and circumstances and the evidences on record.
12. Though the investigation had not been completed in the criminal proceedings initiated against the driver of the insured Tractor pursuant to the Ex.P1 FIR dated 12.07.2010, it cannot be ipso facto concluded that the Tribunal has passed a wrong Judgment and Decree.
13. If that was the intention of the Act to wait for the final outcome of the investigation by the police under the provision of the Cr.P.C, the victims of a motor accident and their dependants cannot expect to get a just compensation in time under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to succour to their needs in the immediate aftermation of the accident. The purpose of filing FIR is only to initiate criminal proceedings and to bring the wrong doer to justice for carring death and injury due to his/her rash and negligent driving of motorcycle. Initiation of the criminal proceedings would merely corroborate the factum of the motor accident. The final ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 7 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 outcome is not relevant for determining the compensation payable under the Act.
14. Further, the Tribunals under the Act are not governed by the strict principles of evidence. While the criminal courts are required to give a verdict based on a finding that a person is guilty only if the quilty is proved beyond the reasonable doubt, the Tribunals under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are governed by preponderance of probability. In fact, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is merely a civil remedy recognising the tortuous liability of the owner of the vehicle for the acts of negligence. If there is contributory negligence, the Tribunal would be justified in reducing the compensation.
15. The Insurance Company is merely required to indemnify the liability of the owner and the Act has been enacted with a view to protect the victim of the accident as in all cases variably the owner of the vehicle may not possess means to compensate the victims. Thus, the Act mandates compulsory insurance.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 8 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
16. As per the claim statement before the Tribunal, the appellants alleged that when they were standing on the side of the road, the insured Tractor belonging to the 1st respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants also stated that the driver of the motorcycle, namely the deceased Sankar, was not driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. However, the Tribunal refused to believe the version of the appellants that the insured Tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner on the ground that the person who gave the FIR namely Ramar was not an eye witness as per the evidence of R.W.3 of the second respondent Insurance Company.
17. On the other hand, two other witnesses are the appellants in C.M.A.Nos.2040 & 2041 of 2013. No other eye witnesses have been examined by the second respondent Insurance Company. Neither the driver nor the owner of the insured Tractor also has been summoned and examined by the 2nd respondent Insurance Company to disprove the allegations of the appellants.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 9 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
18. On the other hand, the Tribunal has placed heavy reliance on the oral evidence of R.W.3, the Inspector of Police who was examined on behalf of the second respondent Insurance Company. R.W.3 has merely stated that both the Accident Sketch and Mahazar was prepared by Sub-Inspector Selvaraj and he was giving evidence based on the records maintained in the police station. On the date when the impugned common Judgment came to be passed, the investigation pursuant to Ex.P1 - FIR had not been completed. No final report had been filed. Barring the appellants in C.M.A.Nos.2040 & 2041 of 2013 (P.Saravanan & P.Ramesh), there are no other eye witness to contradict their case that the insured Tractor came and hit the appellant from behind.
19. The Tribunal has come to a conclusion that there was a contradiction in the statement given in the FIR and the deposition of the appellants in C.M.A.Nos.2040 & 2041 of 2013 (P.Saravanan & P.Ramesh). As far as the deposition of the 1st appellant in C.M.A.No.2042 of 2013 who is the wife of deceased Sankar is concerned, the Tribunal has correctly stated that she is not an eye witness. The Tribunal has also concluded that R.W.3 Inspector of Police has deposed the evidence to that effect that the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 10 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 person who gave the complaint, namely Ramar also was not an eye witness. Therefore, the fact remains that on the date when the evidences were on recorded in M.C.O.P.Nos.54 to 56 of 2011, Final Report based on the FIR had not been filed under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, the investigation in the said FIR was inconclusive.
20. The two other witnesses produced by the 2nd respondent Insurance Company are the Investigator and the Senior Officer of the 2nd respondent Insurance Company. Neither of them are eye witnesses. Therefore, their evidence cannot be given precedence over other evidence.
21. There is a delay in filing of the FIR. The accident is said to have taken place on 07.07.2010 at about 12.30 p.m. However, Ex.P1 - FIR was registered on 12.07.2010 after the death of the rider of the motorcycle, namely deceased Shankar, on 11.07.2010 at about 08.00 p.m.
22. Therefore, only basis on which the Tribunal could have come to a conclusion as to whether the accident was on account of rash and negligent ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 11 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 driving of the motorcycle by the deceased Sankar or the driver of insured Tractor can be based on the accident sketch which was marked as Ex.R2 dated 12.07.2010.
23. Dealing with somewhat similar cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Mohammed Siddique and Another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2020 (1) TN MAC 161 (SC) held that in absence of any evidences to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. There the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the finding of the Tribunal and the High Court and held that 10% contributory negligence cannot be justified.
24. The Court further held that at the most, it would have made person guilty of violations of the law under Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the said provision imposed merely a restriction on the driver of the two wheeler to not to carry more than one person as a pillion rider. The Court further noted that Section 194-C inserted by the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 12 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 Amendment Act 32 of 2019 has merely prescribed a penalty for a violation of safety measures to the motorcycle driver and the pillion rider and therefore, the fact that the pillion rider along with driver may be a violation of the law does not necessarily lead to an inference of contributory negligence, unless it is established that this very act of riding along with two others, contributed to the accident.
25. Even otherwise, the case of the 2nd respondent Insurance Company before the Tribunal was that the deceased Shankar with two other pillion riders, namely, the appellants in C.M.A.Nos.2040 & 2041 of 2013 (P.Saravanan & P.Ramesh) came and hit the stationary Tractor and caused a self accident.
26. However, Ex.P.1 - FIR has also not exactly stated that the insured Tractor with Dozer was stationary or that the deceased Shankar drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. On the other hand, the incident narrated in it seems to indicate that the road was blocked for road widening purpose and the insured Tractor with Dozer was unloading sand for widening of the Road and in the process jerked after unloading when the deceased Shankar attempted to pass the insured Tractor. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 13 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
27. Thus, it can be visualised that the road had not been fully blocked for widening purpose. The Tractor was unloading sand and must have jerked when the motorcycle driven by the deceased Shankar with two other appellants in C.M.A.Nos.2040 & 2041 of 2013 (P.Saravanan & P.Ramesh) attempted to cross it and in the process, it knocked the motorcycle, as a result of which, all the three persons who were on the motorcycle suffered grievous injuries and the rider, i.e deceased Shankar eventually died in the hospital on 11.07.2010.
28. It is only thereafter the FIR has been filed. The Tribunal has fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Shankar and reduced the compensation to the respective appellants.
29. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the deceased was riding the motorcycle with the other two appellants in C.M.A.Nos.2040 and 2041 of 2013 as his pillion riders on the road where the repair and road widening work was in progress. The contractor who undertook the road widening work was required cordon off ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 14 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 to not to allow any vehicle to ply on the said road. Therefore, by applying the principles of occupant’s liability, I am of the view that it can be inferred that the owner of the insured Tractor as a representative of the contractor was also responsible for the accident.
30. Further, this is not a case where the motorcycle was hit from behind or injured persons were knocked down by the insured Tractor as was alleged in the claim petition. This is a case when the insured Tractor was unloading sand, when the deceased Shankar along the appellants in C.M.A.Nos.2040 & 2041 of 2013 (P.Saravanan & P.Ramesh) tried to cross it, when the insured Tractor appear to have jerked and moved and knocked the motorcycle and its rider. It was perhaps impossible for the driver of the Tractor to control the Tractor and thus the motorcycle came under its wheels and therefore, the deceased Shankar and two other appellants C.M.A.Nos.2040 & 2041 of 2013 (P.Saravanan & P.Ramesh) suffered grievous injuries.
31. Considering the same, it cannot be said that the deceased Shankar was not fully guilty of contributory negligence for the accident. It was also ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 15 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 the responsibility of the contractor and the supervisor of the contractor to ensure that the road was physically closed and cordoned off so that no person can drive or ride through the blocked road. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to conclude that the deceased Shankar was also guilty of contributory negligence. However, fixing 50% contributory negligence fixed on the deceased Shankar by the Tribunal appears to be disproportionate. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I am inclined to conclude that 30% contributory negligence can be fixed on the deceased Shankar, the rider of the motorcycle and on the two other appellants in C.M.A.Nos.2040 & 2041 of 2013 (P.Saravanan & P.Ramesh). Balance 70% liability could be passed to the contractor and the driver of the insured tractor.
32. It shall therefore now deal with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. As far as the appellant in C.M.A.No.2040 of 2013 (P.Saravanan) is concerned, the Tribunal has concluded that the appellant suffered a partial permanent disability even though as per the claim petition the nature of injuries suffered by him are as follows:-
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 16 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 i. Fracture left thigh ii. Fracture left knee iii. Fracture left leg iv. Injury over left leg v. Injury over left foot vi. Injury over left arm
33. These injuries have not resulted either in partial permanent disability or permanent disability. However, for the injuries, the appellant has to be compensated. Therefore, I do not find any merits in disturbing the calculation arrived by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2011. However, 50% contributory negligence shall be reduced to 30%. Therefore, the appellant in C.M.A.No.2040 of 2013 (P.Saravanan) is entitled for a slighty enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,54,175/- (2,20,250 – 30% ) is awarded.
34. As far as the appellant in C.M.A.No.2041 of 2013 (P.Ramesh) is concerned, the injuries suffered by the said appellant as per the claim petition are as follows:-
i. Left foot amputated ii. Multiple crush injuries over left foot iii. Injury over right knee ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 17 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 iv. Injury over right leg v. Injury over arm
35. It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- towards partial permanent disability by considering the extent of 56% disability at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percentage. In my view, the above computation of compensation for amputation of left foot for the person who depended fully on the physical well being appears to be low. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity instead of permanent disability as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 by applying the multiplier.
36.There is an amputation of left foot. Considering the fact that the said appellant was a coolie and an agriculturist, it would certainly compromise his avocation either as a coolie or as an agriculturist as such persons use their body parts for hard physical work. Certainly, there is a functional disability. Therefore, I assess 30% functional disability for awarding compensation. The other heads need not to be disturbed in this appeal.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 18 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
37. A notional income of Rs.6,000/- of the said appellant appears to be reasonable. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of future prospects. As per the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210 and V.Mekala Vs. Malathi and Another, (2014) 11 SCC 178, the appellant is entitled for such enhanced compensation. At the same time, a sum of Rs.36,000/- awarded towards loss of income for the period of six months is liable to be set aside.
38. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.2,20,461 calculated by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.55 of 2011 is re-quantified as follows:-
Compensation Heads and Calculation enhanced by this Court Loss of earning capacity:-
# Monthly Income : Rs.6,000/-
** Add: Future Prospectus at 40%
(6,000x 40/100) : Rs.2,400/-
---------------
: Rs.8,400/-
---------------
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 19 of 26
C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
Compensation
Heads and Calculation enhanced by this
Court
# Annual Income before
the accident (8,400 x 12) : Rs.1,00,800/-
# Loss of future earning per annum
at 30 % (1,00,800 x 30/100) : Rs.30,240/-
* Applicable multiplier with
reference to the age : 17 Rs.5,14,080/-
(17 x 30,240) : Rs.5,14,080/-
Pain and Suffering Rs. 28,000/-
Extra Nourishment Rs. 8,400/-
Attender Charges Rs. 3,000/-
Transport Expenses Rs. 5,600/-
Medical Expenses Rs. 27,461/-
Total Rs.5,86,541/-
# As per the decision in Raj Kumar’s case (supra).
* As per the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 12.
** As per the decision of the in Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210 and V.Mekala Vs. Malathi and Another, (2014) 11 SCC 178.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 20 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
39. Therefore, since there is 30% contributory negligence, the appellant in C.M.A.No.2041 of 2013 (P.Ramesh) is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,10,580/- (Rs.5,86,541 – 30% = 4,10,578.70which is rounded off to Rs.4,10,580/-).
40. As far as the appellants in C.M.A.No.2042 of 2013 who are the legal representatives of the deceased Shankar are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,25,000/-. The notional income of Rs.10,000/- per month of the deceased considered by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable.
41. A sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium awarded by the Tribunal to the 1st appellant in C.M.A.No.2042 of 2013 appears to be low and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Since a sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection by the Tribunal is low, a sum of Rs.80,000/- (40,000 x 2) under the head of loss of filial consortium is to be awarded to the 2nd and 3rd appellants in C.M.A.No.2042 of 2013 as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 21 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 Company Limited Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : 2018 OnLine SC 1546.
42.The Tribunal has also not awarded any amounts towards future prospects. Since the deceased Shankar was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% future prospects is to be added to the aforesaid notional income of Rs.10,000/- per month to arrive at a just compensation. The compensation awarded under the other heads stands confirmed.
43.Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.14,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is re-quantified as follows:-
Compensation Heads and Calculation enhanced by this Court Loss of dependency:-
Monthly Income of the deceased - Rs.10,000/-
Annual Income (10,000 x 12) : Rs.1,20,000/-
Add: Future Prospects at 40 %
(1,20,000 x 40/100) : Rs. 48,000/-
------------------
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 22 of 26
C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013
Compensation
Heads and Calculation enhanced by this
Court
: Rs.1,68,000/-
Less: Personal Expenses at 1/3rd
(1,68,000 x 1/3) : Rs. 56,000/-
------------------
: Rs.1,12,000/-
Rs.19,04,000/-
Multiplier 17 (1,12,000 x 17) : Rs.19,04,000/-
Loss of consortium to the 1st appellant Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of filial consortium to the 2nd and 3rd respondents (40,000 x 2) Rs. 80,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Transport Expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.20,34,000/-
44. Since there is 30% contributory negligence, the appellants in C.M.A.No.2042 of 2013 are entitled for a sum of Rs.14,24,000/- (20,34,000 – 30/100 = Rs.14,23,800 which is rounded off to Rs.14,24,000/-).
45.Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed with the above observations:-
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 23 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 In C.M.A.No.2040 of 2013:-
i. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,54,175/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less any amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. ii. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same, less any amount already withdrawn, by filing suitable applications before the Tribunal.
iii. No cost In C.M.A.No.2041 of 2013:-
i. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,10,580/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less any amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. ii. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same, less any amount already withdrawn, by filing suitable applications before the Tribunal.
iii. No cost.
In C.M.A.No.2042 of 2013:-
i. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.14,24,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 24 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 less any amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. ii. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the same in the same proportion awarded by the Tribunal, less any amount already withdrawn, by filing suitable applications before the Tribunal.
iii. No cost.
19.01.2021 jen / kkd Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Notes:-In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To The Principal Sub Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vridhachalam.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 25 of 26 C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen Pre-Delivery Common Judgment in C.M.A.Nos.2040 to 2042 of 2013 19.01.2021 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 26 of 26