Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
K. Shanthi & Others – Appellant
Versus
M. Gowri & Another -Respondents
C.M.A. No. 47 of 2015
Decided On : 08-12-2020
For the Appellant :T.G. Balachandran, Advocate
For the Respondents:R2, J. Michael Visuvasam, Advocate
The main legal point established is that the court can consider the deceased's age, future prospects, and proficiency in specific areas, along with the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to determine just and fair compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation Enhancement - The court modified and enhanced the compensation awarded by the tribunal, considering the deceased's bright future prospects and proficiency in NCC, and applying the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi.
Fact of the Case:
The minor son of the claimants was fatally injured in a road accident caused by a lorry driver's negligence. The claimants sought compensation, which was initially awarded at Rs.4,75,000 by the tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the fixation of notional income at Rs.15,000 p.a was erroneous and enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,40,006, considering the deceased's bright future prospects and proficiency in NCC.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of fair compensation for the deceased's loss of earning capacity, future prospects, and other related expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and considered the deceased's age, future prospects, and proficiency in NCC to arrive at a just and fair compensation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, modifying and enhancing the compensation to Rs.6,40,006, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.2552 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai, dated 5th day of August 2013.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. This Appeal is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
2. The facts of the case is that, on 02.05.2015, at about 6.30 hours when K.Ajith Kumar, minor son of the claimants Nos.1 & 2 and brother of claimant No.3 aged about 14 years studying 10th standard proceeding in his cycle from V.S.Mudali street and took a turn towards North at Jayaram street, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-22-X-5765 driven rash and negligently hit the cycle and caused fatal head injury to the minor boy Ajith Kumar.
3. The claim petition for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was filed against the vehicle owner and the insurer. The Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that, the lorry driver had no valid driving license and the accident occurred due to negligence of the victim. The victim being a minor, non-earning students, the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- is exorbitant. The delay in lodging the F.I.R and the discrepancy in the medical record renders the claimant ineligible to seek compensation.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence placed before it, fixed Rs.15,000/- as annual income of the deceased boy aged 16 and applied multiplier 18 to arrive at a compensation, after granting Rs.75,000/- towards Future Prospects, a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- was awarded. Not satisfied with the quantum, the present appeal is filed on the ground that fixation of notional income at Rs.15,000/- p.a is erroneous. The deceased was studying 10th standard and had a very bright future prospects being a NCC candidate. The award under funeral expense, loss of expectation of life, loss of love and affection are very low and require to be revised and enhanced.
5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that for female children aged about 12 years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed notional income of Rs.40,000/-p.a. Whereas, the victim in this case was a minor boy age 16 years and was excellency in NCC, had very bright future prospects. Therefore, fixation of Rs.15,000/- is very low.
6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that when there is no indication for earning capacity or skill to earn, for the student just completed his 10th standard, fixation of Rs.15,000/- p.a as notional income is fair and required no revision.
7. The accident occurred on 02.05.2012. The negligence on the part of the lorry driver being prima faciely established through Ex.P.1 (F.I.R) and Ex.P.3 charge sheet. The Transfer Certificate of the deceased boy is marked as Ex.P.8 which indicates that, he has completed his 10th standard and was qualified to join higher studies. He has proficiency in NCC.
8. The contention of the Leaned counsel for the appellant that, the victim had a very bright future prospects, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, taking note of the fact that the deceased was 16 years old at that time of death to arrive at loss of earning, Schedule-II provides the multiplier. Though the Schedule-II is meant for Section 163 (A) of Motor Vehicle Act, same can be taken into consideration for fixation of just and fair compensation for petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act also. Victim of the age below 20 years if the notional income is taken as Rs.40,000/- p.a, after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenditure and applying multiplier ‘18’, the loss of income is fixed as Rs.4,80,006/-. Therefore, while applying the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- for Transportation, Rs.15,000/-
