Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3705
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. SASIDHARAN, R. SUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Selvam - Appellant
Versus
P. Senthil Kumar - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1358, 2742 of 2014
Decided On : 27-09-2018
R. Singaravelan, Adv., V. Parivallal, Adv., D. Bhaskaran, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation for the death of an agriculturist in a motor accident, considering factors such as loss of income, future prospects, and guidelines provided by higher courts.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - The court discussed the basis for arriving at compensation for the death of an agriculturist and enhanced the compensation based on the guidelines suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2018) 1 LW 331.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor accident resulting in the death of K.C. Mohan. The claimants sought compensation for the loss of income and other expenses due to the deceased's death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had not awarded an adequate amount for loss of income and other expenses. It enhanced the compensation based on the evidence and guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Issues: The main issue was the quantum of compensation to be awarded for the death of an agriculturist in a motor accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence of the deceased's land ownership and employment of workers to determine the loss of income. It also referred to the judgment in New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Kayalvizhi and five others, (2010) 1 CTC 823, and the guidelines in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2018) 1 LW 331, to enhance the compensation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed one appeal and partly allowed another, modifying the compensation to Rs. 27,64,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the modified amount within six weeks.
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. Challenge in these appeals, is to the Award dated 10.03.2014 in MCOP Nos.263 and 266 of 2009 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Judge), Vellore granting a sum of Rs. 26,75,000/- for the death of one K.C. Mohan in the motor accident that had occurred on 12.09.2005.
2. Though Insurance Company has come forward with the appeal in CMA No.2742 of 2014, Mr. D. Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would fairly state that he is not questioning the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence.
3. We have heard Mr. Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel for the claimants. Since the only question to be decided is about the quantum of compensation, we are not dealing with the other aspects of the award passed by the Tribunal.
4. According to the claimants, on 12.09.2005 at 7.20 p.m, while the said K.C. Mohan was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN.01/A0605 at Kasiviswanatharkoil street at Walajapet, a lorry, bearing Registration No.KA-02-D-0009, belonging to 1st respondent in CMA No.1358 of 2014 and insured with the Insurance Company/2nd respondent in CMA No.1358 of 2014, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit against the said K.C. Mohan. As a result of which, he died on the spot. The claimants also contended that the deceased was an agriculturist owning 100 acres of land having coconut grove at Walaja Taluk in Vellore District. According to the claimants, the deceased was doing agriculture adopting modern cultivation methods and was earning a sum of Rs. 75,000/- per month.
5. In order to prove their claim, the claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Exs.P.1 to 69 were marked. On the side of the appellant Insurance Company, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.14 were marked.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, insured with the respondent Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the entire liability on the appellant Insurance Company.
7. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the monthly income lost to the family because of the death of the deceased is about Rs. 30,000/-. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses (30,000-10,000) arrived Rs. 20,000/- as loss of contribution by the deceased to his family. The Tribunal, based on the age of the deceased, namely, 51 years, applied the multiplier 11 and calculated the loss of income at Rs. 26,40,000/- (Rs.20,000 x 12 x 11).
8. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees 10,000/- each to the wife and children) towards loss of love and affection and thus, the total award worked out to Rs. 26,75,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The break up of the details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are as follows:
Loss of income
Rs. 26,40,000
Loss of loss of love and affection
Rs. 30,000
Funeral expenses
Rs. 5,000
Total
Rs.26,75,000/-
Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.2742 of 2014 and seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimants have filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.1358 of 2014.
9. Mr. R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal is not right in fixing Rs. 30,000/- as monthly income. He would invite the attention of oral as well as documentary evidence showing the ownership of the lands and contend the Tribunal should have adopted higher amount as monthly income. He also submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and loss of love and a
