Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Thangamani – Respondent
CMA No. 2479 of 2023|CMP NO. 23100 OF 2023|MCOP No.14/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For the Respondents: Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
Compensation in vehicular accidents must accurately reflect income, future prospects, and contributory negligence, with adequate proof required for claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Compensation for accident - Appeal by insurance company against the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal - Tribunal determined the compensation as Rs.26,47,000/-, which was reduced to Rs.20,58,300/- by the Court after reconsidering the income of deceased with respect to future prospects and contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet - Court clarified the components of compensation awarded and adjustments for fault. (Paras 3, 11, 12)
(B) Compensation Calculation - The tribunal's fixing of income at Rs.20,000/- deemed unsupported and modified after evaluating arguments for income proof and future prospects - Consideration of mental agony awarded to complainants appropriately enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/-. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The accident occurred on 05.12.2015, causing the death of Duraisamy; respondents filed for compensation citing rash driving by another vehicle. Tribunal assessed responsibility and compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Court recognized the lack of proper income proof and concluded that adjustments in compensation and acknowledgment of contributory negligence were necessary.
Issues: The primary concerns included assessment of income and liability for contributory negligence regarding the deceased's failure to wear a helmet.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment highlighted the need for concrete evidence when determining compensation, vital to address other inconsistencies or negligent factors from both parties.
Result: Compensation reduced to Rs.20,58,300/- with accompanying interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging tribunal's decision on compensation for accident. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by counsel regarding income estimation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's examination of evidence and ruling on negligence. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. final judgment and modification of compensation to rs.20,58,300. (Para 11) |
| 5. court's reasoning on contributory negligence and compensation adjustment. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Challenging the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Mettur at Salem in MCOP No.14 of 2017, dated 09.12.2022, the appellant/3rd respondent insurance company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2.The case of the respondents/petitioners 1 to 4 is that on 05.12.2015 at about 09.00 hours. when the deceased Duraisamy returning to his house after completion of his work by riding his two wheeler bearing Regn. No. TN-30 BY- 0731 on Nangavalli to Jalagandapuram Main Road, near Sanyasi Muniappan, at that time, the bus bearing Regn. No. TN-52-D-6677 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the two wheeler and crushed the deceased Duraisamy and caused accident. Due to which, he sustained grievous head 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.49,03,000/-.
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 1st respondent. Having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation payable at Rs.26,47,000/- under various heads and the said compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
4.The Insurance Company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal has filed the present appeal before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for appellant argues that the tribunal had erroneously fixed the income of deceased as Rs.20,000/- without any income proof and also raised objections stating that at the time of alleged accident, the deceased has not wore helmet. So, he has violated the traffic rules, but the contributory negligence on the side of deceased was not considered by the tribunal. Furthermore, the 3rd respondent, who was father of deceased was not considered as his dependant and the deduction for personal expenses has not been properly considered. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 have raised objections stating that tribunal has rightly fixed the income of deceased considering the fact that he is a mechanic of Powerloom and earned a sum of Rs.32,000/- per month and the same was rightly considered by the tribunal, which needs no interference. He would also submit that with regard to contributory negligence, before the tribunal, they have not raised any objections. Hence, he prayed to dismiss this appeal as no merit.
7. Heard and considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and respondents 1, 2 and 4 and perused materials available on record.
8. Considering both side submissions, the fact reveals that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 44 years. According to respondents 1 to
4, the deceased was a Mechanic of Powerloom and earned a sum of Rs.32,000/-. To that effect, the 1st respondent was examined as P.W.1, but except her oral evidence, there is no income proof produced on their side. The accident was happened in the year 2015, but without any proof, the tribunal had taken income of deceased as Rs.20,000/- and deducted Rs.5000/-. Accordingly, his income is liable to be modified as Rs.15,000/- and 25% of future prospects is to be arrived and also the deduction towards personal expenses is to be arrived as 1/3.
9. Furthermore, the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
und
