Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
A. Prathima W/o Kothandapani Naidu @ Kothandapani – Appellant
Versus
T. Ramesh – Respondent
CMA Nos. 2196, 2197, 2198, 2206, 2208, 2209, 2210, 2214, 2215, 2216, 2242, 2243, 2256, 2257 of 2022
Decided On : 23-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : F. Terry Chellaraja.
For the Respondent: K. Vinod.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the notional income for compensation in motor accident cases can be fixed based on prevailing judicial standards, ensuring fair compensation for victims.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Act Section List - The court discussed provisions related to compensation for victims of motor accidents, emphasizing the need for just compensation based on notional income and the liability of the insurance company to pay and recover from the vehicle owner.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves multiple civil miscellaneous appeals seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for injuries and deaths caused by a lorry accident during a protest against illegal sand mining.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving, and the insurance company was liable to pay the enhanced compensation as per the modified calculations.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate and whether the notional income of the deceased should be fixed at Rs. 13,500/-.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notional income should be fixed at Rs. 13,500/- based on previous judgments and the circumstances of the case, thereby enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Result: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
1. These 'Civil Miscellaneous Appeals' (henceforth 'CMAs') are directed against the common Award dated April 1, 2021 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.Nos.3743, 3019, 3038, 2975, 2993, 3037, 2970, 2701, 2986, 3036, 3930, 2976, 3018 and 3931 of 2017, by the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court-2, Court of Small Causes, Chennai' [henceforth 'Tribunal'], praying to enhance the compensation.
2. In all the aforementioned CMAs', the appellants are the petitioners/claimants before the Tribunal, while the first respondent and the second respondent are the owner and the insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No. AP-26-TD-8679.
Case of the Petitioners (Appellants)
3. On April 21, 2017, at about 01.00 P.M., a group of individuals were protesting in front of Yerpedu Police Station on the Tirupati-Srikalahasti Road, Yerpadu against illegal sand mining and transportation from Swarnamukhi River. The Circle Inspector of Police was trying to pacify them. During this interaction, the driver of the Goods Carrier Lorry with registration number AP-26-TD-8679 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, hitting and running over a few of them and also colliding with an electric pole causing the live electric wires to fall onto the villagers, resulting many people sustaining multiple grievous injuries as well as deaths. The petitioners/claimants therefore filed Claim Petitions before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
First Respondent's case
4. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the first respondent did not choose to contest the petitions and he remained absent and hence, he was set ex-parte before the Tribunal in all the petitions.
Second Respondent's case
5. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter affidavit whereby, the age, income and avocation of the deceased in all these appeals were denied. According to the second respondent, the cause of accident was the persons including the deceased protesting in the middle of the road by obstructing the road traffic. The driver of the first respondent’s lorry was neither speeding nor driving the lorry recklessly. The First Information Report (FIR) pointed at one Guruvaya as the Driver of the first respondent’s Lorry while the Charge Sheet pointed at one Bedde Subramaniyam as the Driver of the said Lorry. Neither of these persons possessed a valid driving license at the time of accident. Further, the first respondent failed to intimate the factum of accident and furnish relevant particulars/ documents to the second respondent. The amount of compensation claimed under different heads in the petitions is excessive. Therefore, the second respondent-Insurance Company sought to dismiss the Original Petitions.
6. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, PW-1 to PW-15 were examined and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.113 were marked. On the side of the second respondent-Insurance Company, one Mr. Ashokkumar, Officer of the second respondent-Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.4 were marked.
7. The Tribunal, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the Driver of the first respondent's Lorry was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation accordingly to all the petitioners/claimants.
8. Feeling aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioners/claimants have preferred these CMAs' praying to enhance the compensation awarded.
Arguments
9. This Court has heard the submissions made on either side.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submitted that in all the matters, the notional income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. In the CMAs' filed by the people who were injured in the same accident seeking enhancement of compensation, this Court has fixed the notional income at Rs.13,500/- vide its Common Judgment dated February 16, 2024 made in CMA.Nos.958, 962, 971 and 972 of 2023. Hence, he prayed this Court to fix a sum of Rs.13,500/- as notional income of all the deceased, in the instant CMAs'.
1
