Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15287
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. Subbiah, Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, JJ
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
A.Senthilkumar – Respondent
C.M.A. Nos.1800 of 2019 and 2314 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Nicholas
The court affirms equal treatment in determining notional income for deceased individuals regardless of their educational background when assessing compensation for loss in motor vehicle accident cases.
Headnote:1. The appeals arise from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimants sought Rs.50,00,000 as compensation for the death of a young individual in a car accident attributed to negligent driving. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,70,100, which the court later enhanced based on calculated notional income and future prospects. 2. The core issues framed include whether the Tribunal's award was excessive, as per the Insurance Company’s assertion, or if the claimants’ request for enhancement was justified. The court emphasized the equal treatment of different educational backgrounds in determining compensation and upheld the necessity of compensation for loss of estate, concluding that the original award did not accurately reflect the deceased's potential income. 3. In the result, C.M.A. No. 1800 of 2019 is dismissed, and C.M.A. No. 2314 of 2018 is partly allowed. The total compensation is enhanced to Rs.28,87,700 with interest at 7.5% per annum.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fact summary regarding the accident's circumstances and claim petition. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 2. presentation of arguments regarding compensation and notional income. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court’s rationale in evaluating notional income against employability risks. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. decision to grant additional compensation for loss of estate. (Para 18) |
| 5. final rulings on the dismissal of one appeal and enhancement of compensation on another. (Para 19 , 20) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J.
C.M.A. No. 1800 of 2019 is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 20.03.2018 in M.C.O.P. No. 101 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi.
2. C.M.A.No. 2314 of 2018 is filed by the claimants against the very same award dated 20.03.2018 in M.C.O.P. No. 101 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi, for enhancement of compensation.
3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident and award, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petition for the sake of convenience.
5. According to the claimants, on 19.06.2009, the deceased S.Harihara Sudhan, along with his friends, were travelling in Innova 2.5G Car bearing Registration No.AP-09-BQ-0250, to participate in a marriage party. The car belong to the 4th respondent and driven by the 3rd respondent during night time on 19.06.2009. After attending the party, on 20.06.2009, at 4.00 a.m., they were proceeding towards Ohris Hotel, in Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. On reaching a place called Kaman in Road No.12, Banjara Hills, the said Innova car was driven by the 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. In the curved area, the 3rd respondent could not control the car, and dashed against an Electric pole which is situated in front of Audi car show room. In the impact, the car once again dashed against Road Divider, as a result of which, the car over turned on western side of the road and came to a halt. In the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
6. In connection with the aforesaid accident on 19.06.2009, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the claimants filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 101 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.
7. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, a counter statement has been filed before the Tribunal contending inter alia that the age, income and occupation of the deceased as stated by the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition are required to be proved by the claimants by acceptable evidence. The Insurance Company, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/father of the deceased examined himself as P.W.1 and one Mr. Pranavsingaar was examined as P.W.2, and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced.
9. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Innova Car belonging 4th respondent and directed the appellant appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.20,70,100/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants.
10. As against the award passed by the Tribunal both these appeals are filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimants.
11. Thiru S.Arun Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted the amount awarded by the Tribunal is extremely on the higher side. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,70,100/- for the death of the deceased in the fatal accident without considering the oral and documentary evidence filed by the claimant. The deceased was a student pursuing Engineering College and he is a non-earnin
