IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 05.12.2019 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY C.M.A.Nos.1787, 1886 and 1887 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.13760 of 2018 C.M.A.No.1787 of 2018 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims Hub, No.751, Anna Salai, 3rd Floor, Chennai - 1. .. Appellant vs.

1.Kavitha

2.Balaji (minor)

3.Srimathi (minor)

4.Gowri

5.G.Prabhu .. Respondents (minor respondents 2 and 3 are rep. by their mother and next friend R1)

C.M.A.No.1886 of 2018

1.A.Kavitha

2.Balaji

3.Srimathi

4.Gowri (minor appellants 2 and 3 are rep.

by their mother and next friend first appellant) .. Appellants vs.

1.G.Prabhu

2.The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims Hub, No.751, Anna Salai, 3rd Floor, Chennai - 1. .. Respondents C.M.A.No.1887 of 2018 Kavitha .. Appellant vs.

1.G.Prabhu

2.The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims Hub, No.751, Anna Salai, 3rd Floor, Chennai - 1. .. Respondents Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 29.04.2017 made in M.C.O.P.Nos. 4808 and 4900 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai. For Appellants : Mr.R.Neethi Perumal in C.M.A.No.1787 of 2018 Mr.F.Terry Chellaraja in C.M.A.Nos.1886 and

1887 of 2018 For Respondents : Mr.F.Terry Chellaraja for R1 to R4 in C.M.A.No.1787 of 2018 R5 exparte in C.M.A.No.1787 of 2018 Mr.R.Neethiperumal for R2 R1- exparte in C.M.A.Nos.1886 and

1887 of 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

As all the appeals are emanating from the common judgment rendered in M.C.O.P.Nos.4808 and 4900 of 2015 between the same parties, they have been taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

2.For the sake of brevity, the appellant in C.M.A. No.1787 of

2018 has been taken as such as against the respondents therein for all the cases.

3.The appellant is the insurer of the lorry bearing Regn. No.TN

64 H 1977. The deceased was travelling in a vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN 29 AK 9016 along with respondents 1 to 4/claimants. It is the case of respondents 1 to 4 that the vehicle insured with the appellant was driven in a rash and negligent manner and thus responsible for the death of the deceased and causing injuries on respondents 1 to 4.

4.The Tribunal, while fixing the negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle which has been insured with the appellant, awarded compensation in favour of respondents 1 to 4/claimants. Thus, compensation has been awarded for the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by respondents 1 to 4. Challenging the award passed in MCOP No.4808 of 2015, C.M.A.No.1787 of 2018 has been filed. Seeking enhancement, respondents 1 to 4 filed C.M.A. No.1886 of 2018 (MCOP No.4808 of 2015). C.M.A. No.1887 of 2018 (MCOP No.4900 of 2015) has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to the injuries suffered by respondents 1 to 4.

5.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed Rs.15,000/- as the income of the deceased when he is only a driver. There are no sufficient materials to come to the aforesaid conclusion. Higher amounts have been granted under the conventional heads such as loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the appeal in CMA No.1787 of 2018 will have to be allowed to that extent.

6.Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submits that the Tribunal did take into consideration Exs.P7, P8 and R9. After having done so, the income has been wrongly fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month. Insofar as the injuries suffered by respondents 1 to 4, the Tribunal did not take into consideration the relevant materials.

7.From the submissions made, there is no serious issue raised with respect to negligence. Therefore, we are concerned with the quantum alone. The Tribunal did fix the income of the decease