Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Manimegala – Appellant
Versus
S.R.Kannan – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal | CMA No. 1874 of 2025 | MCOP.No. 2470 of 2020
For the Appellant(s): Mr.K. Ayyadurai
For the Respondent(s): Mr.R.Premchandar
Contributory negligence reduced to 20% for deceased pillion rider under influence of alcohol; total compensation enhanced following reassessment.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Compensation in motor vehicle accident - Deceased was a pillion rider involved in an accident while under the influence of alcohol - The Tribunal initially fixed 50% contributory negligence upon him - However, the court modified this to 20% on appeal. (Paras 4, 8, 10)
(B) Compensation - The appellate court enhanced the total compensation from Rs.11,74,000/- to Rs.19,99,360/- considering reasonable loss of income and modifying contributory negligence. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The deceased Palani died in an accident while riding as a pillion on a two-wheeler, and the claim for compensation was filed against the negligent rider. The Tribunal awarded Rs.11,74,000/- after considering contributory negligence of 50%.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that while the deceased was a pillion rider and under the influence of alcohol, the contributory negligence was reduced to 20%. The notional monthly income was enhanced to Rs.16,000/- for calculating compensation.
Issues: The main issues included the proper assessment of contributory negligence and the evaluation of the deceased's income.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that contributory negligence should be proportional to the deceased's actual involvement in the accident, thus enhancing compensation accordingly.
Result: The compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.11,74,000/- is enhanced to Rs.19,99,360/-.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case establish a motor accident resulting in a fatality. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding contributory negligence raised; assessment of deceased's involvement discussed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court modifies assessment of contributory negligence based on rider's actual involvement. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. final conclusion reached to enhance total compensation awarded. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Challenging the impugned award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MCOP.No.2470 of 2020, the appellant/petitioner had preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellant is mother of deceased Palani. The case of the appellant is that on 21.06.2020 at about 13.30 hours, when the appellant's son was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Regn. No. TN-70 BY-820 at Medavakkam Main Road towards Echangadu signal in front of Kovilambakkam barath petrol bunk, at that time, the rider of two wheeler drove it in a rash and negligent manner hit the center median of the road and caused an accident. Due to which, the deceased Palani sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
3.The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the 3rd respondent. Having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation payable at Rs.11,74,000/- under various heads as follows:
S.No
Compensation awarded under the head
Amount (in Rs.)
1.
Loss of income/dependency
22,68,000
2.
Loss of estate
15,000
3.
Loss of consortium
40,000
4.
Funeral expenses
15,000
5.
Transportation charges including damages to personal belongings
10,000
Total compensation awarded (by adding Sl. Nos. 1 to 5)
23,48,000
Less :- 50% towards contributory negligence
11,74,000
Net Compensation
11,74,000
4.The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
5. The learned counsel for appellants would argue that the deceased was only a pillion rider, but without considering the same, the tribunal had erroneously fixed 50% of contributory negligence upon him. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings rendered with respect to contributory negligence.
6. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent raised objections stating that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and not wore helmet and also the rider of two wheeler not possessed valid license. Hence, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the contributory negligence upon him, which needs no interference. 7. Heard rival submissions of both learned counsel for appellant as well as 2nd respondents and perused the materials available on record.
8. On seeing the facts, it reveals that the deceased Palani was a pillion rider, however he has not wore helmet and he was also under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, considering the fact that the deceased was a pillion rider, this Court is inclined to modify the contributory negligence fixed upon him. Accordingly, it is reduced as 20% of contributory negligence upon the deceased. Furthermore, on perusal of records, it is seen that the accident was happened in the year 2020 and he was doing mobile service, from which he would have earned more than a sum of Rs.16,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the notional monthly income of the deceased Palani from Rs.15000/- to Rs.16000/-. The compensation that has been fixed under the other heads are reasonable and does not require the interference of this Court.
9.In the light of the above discussion, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified as follows:
S.No
Compensation awarded under the head
Amount awarded by the tribunal
