Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A. SELVAM, P. KALAIYARASAN, JJ.
M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager & Another - Appellant
Versus
Suganthi & Others - Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 2500, 2694 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 02-04-2018
Motor Accident - Compensation - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304[A] - National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017 (2) TN MAC 609) - Loss of Care and Guidance for minor children - Philip Jeyasingh vs. The Joint Registrar (1992) 2 MLJ 309
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor accident resulting in the death of the driver. The claimants sought compensation for the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased driver and the driver of the parked lorry were both negligent, attributing 60% liability to the respondents 1 and 2 and 40% liability to the respondents 3 and 4. The compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was modified accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of liability and quantum of compensation in a motor accident case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles established in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and Others regarding the calculation of compensation for future prospects. It also considered the decision in Philip Jeyasingh vs. The Joint Registrar regarding the award of compensation for Loss of Care and Guidance for minor children.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were allowed in part, modifying the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and apportioning liability between the parties.
A. Selvam, J.
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the award dated 25.02.2015, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 118 of 2013, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special District Court for motor accidents claims cases, Krishnagiri.
2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein, as petitioners, have filed M.C.O.P. No. 118 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, praying to pass an award of Rs.10,00,000/- due to motor accident happened on 30.08.2011.
3. The material averments made in the petition are that the first petitioner is the wife of one Shankar. The remaining petitioners are their children. The said Shankar has served as a driver. On 30.08.2011, during night hours, he has driven a bus bearing registration number TN52-Z-5478 from Dharmapuri to Chennai. The said bus belongs to the third respondent. He has driven the bus cautiously on the extreme let side of the road. At about 3.00 a.m. on 31.08.2011, near Bungalow Medu, the bus has hit a parked lorry bearing registration number TN-70-7004 and the same belongs to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Due to accident, a case has been registered in Crime No. 410 of 2011 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304[A] of Indian Penal Code. At the time of accident, the said Shankar has attained only 35 years of age. Due to accident, he passed away. He has drawn monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. The bus which involved in the accident has been insured with the fourth respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.
4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is averred to the effect that on 30.08.2011, the deceased Shankar served as driver in Mettur Super Service bus bearing registration number TN52-Z-5478 and the same belongs to the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent. It is false to aver that he has driven the bus in extreme left side of the road. That on 31.08.2011 at about 3.00 a.m., near Bungalow Medu, the lorry bearing registration number TN-70-7004 belongs to the first respondent insured with the second respondent has been parked on the right side of the road. The driver of the lorry has diligently parked the same with parking light. The deceased has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. The deceased himself has invited the accident and there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
5. In the counter filed on the side of the fourth respondent, it is averred to the effect that only due to fault on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration number TN-70-7004, the entire accident has happened and therefore, the fourth respondent is not liable to pay compensation and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the available evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.22,20,000/-, by way of compensation. Further, it is directed that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the entire compensation. Against the quantum and also liability fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the second respondent, as appellant, has filed C.M.A.No.2500 of 2015 and the fourth respondent has filed C.M.A.No.2694 of 2015 on the file of this Court.
7. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, common judgment is pronounced.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents 2 and 4 have uniformly contended to the effect that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- and erroneously awarded 50% towards Future Prospects and further, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously awarded huge amounts towards Consortium, Funeral Expenses and also towards Love and Affection and therefore, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be modifie
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
