IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Britto & Another – Appellants
Versus
Nirmala & Another – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 235 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Motor Vehicles Act - Negligence - 173 - 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC, 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC)
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, where the claimants sought compensation for the death of their son in a road accident. The claimants alleged negligence on the part of the car driver, while the respondent denied liability and argued for a lower compensation amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the driver guilty of negligence and held the respondent liable for compensation. It also adjusted the notional income of the deceased and reduced the compensation for loss of love and affection based on legal precedents.
Issues: Negligence, Compensation Amount, Notional Income, Loss of Love and Affection
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the evidence of negligence, the deceased's educational background, and legal precedents regarding compensation for loss of love and affection.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs.19,24,400 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 15.10.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.518 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Additional District and Sessions Judge), Tiruvallur, Poonamallee.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the parents of the deceased, who are the claimants, challenging the order dated 15.10.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.518 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Additional District and Sessions Judge), Tiruvallur, Poonamallee.
2. It is the case of the claimants that the 1st respondent, driver of the car bearing Registration No.TN10 AL 0183 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, who was crossing the 100 ft. road. As a result of which the deceased sustained head injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.
3. The 2nd respondent herein had filed a counter stating that the deceased had crossed the road in a negligent manner and the driver of the vehicle was not liable for negligence. The 2nd respondent further stated that the claim made by the claimants is excessive and cannot be awarded.
4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, remained exparte before the Tribunal and hence, the learned counsel for the appellant has made an endorsement to dispense with the notice to the first respondent.
5. Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined the 1st appellant and an eye witness as PW1 and PW2 and marked exhibits P1 to P10. On the side of the respondents neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.
6. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,39,600/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand and Six Hundred only) under various heads.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal rightly held that the 1st respondent was guilty of negligence and the 2nd respondent liable for payment of compensation; that the son of the claimants was a second year M.B.A. student and had had a very bright future; that however, the Tribunal without considering his qualification and the fact that he was pursuing M.B.A, had taken a meagre notional income of Rs.8,000/- p.m. (Rupees Eight Thousand only); and that the Tribunal ought to have fixed Rs.15,000/- p.m. as the notional income considering the educational background of the deceased.
8. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, per contra submitted that the amount Awarded by the Tribunal is just and need not be interfered with. The notional income of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) fixed by the Tribunal was reasonable, as the son of the claimants was not in employment. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the compensation under the head loss of affection is contrary to the dictum of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC (Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation) and National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC). The amount of compensation awarded at Rs.1,00,000/- each to the claimants is excessive and the Tribunal ought to have awarded only Rs.40,000/- each as per the above decisions.
9. This Court finds that the Tribunal held that the 1st respondent is guilty of negligence. The claimants had examined the 1st appellant as PW1 and an eye witness as PW2. The respondent have not let in any evidence contrary to the said evidence. Hence, the Tribunal had rightly concluded that the 1st respondent was guilty of negligence and the 2nd respondent was liable to pay the compensation. In any case the Insurance Company has not challenged the finding on negligence.
10. As regards quantum, it is that admitted case that the deceased was a B.B.A. Graduate and was pursuing his M.B.A. degree. The accident took place in the
The court emphasized the need to consider the deceased's educational background and future prospects in determining compensation, and it relied on legal precedents to adjust the compensation amount f....
The Court considered the deceased's qualifications, age, and future prospects to determine the notional income and enhance the compensation accordingly.
The court emphasized the power of the courts to grant just compensation, more than the amount claimed by the claimants, and the consideration of the deceased's qualifications and future prospects in ....
The court re-determined the notional income and adjusted the compensation for loss of income, love and affection, and loss of estate based on legal precedents and the nature of the case.
Compensation for death in motor accident must reflect the victim's loss and be consistent with applicable notional income standards, ensuring it is just and reasonable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act based on the deceased's profession, age, and various aspects such as loss of depende....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically section 173, in determining the compensation for a motor accident claim.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of notional income, future prospects, and multiplier '13' to calculate compensation in motor accident claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in modifying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The court established the principle that the deceased did not contribute to the accident and reduced the quantum of compensation based on the notional income and legal principles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.