C.M.A.No.1556 of 2023

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

C.M.A.No.1556 of 2023

1.Priya

2.Gilpat

3.Yona (minor)

rep. By his mother 1^st petitioner, Priya

...Appellants

Vs.

1.K.Latha

2.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Motor III Party Claims Office,

No.232, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Bombay Mutual Building,

6^th Floor, Chennai – 600 101.

...Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decreetal order dated 26.11.2021

in M.C.O.P.No.1985 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, II, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1556 of 2023

For Appellants

: Mr.J.Mahalingam

For Respondents

: Mr.J.Chandran for R2

R1 – Notice dispensed with

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

Considering the fact that the scope of the appeal is very narrow,

the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties.

2.This appeal is directed against the award in M.C.O.P.No.1985 of

2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, granting a

sum of Rs.13,44,700/- for the death of one Stephen Raj, in a road accident

that occurred on 24.02.2018.

3.According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration

No.TN-12-S-7081, which came from behind and hit against the motor cycle.

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1556 of 2023

The claimants also contended that the deceased, who worked as AC

Mechanic was earning about Rs.12,000/- per month and he was 18 years old

at the time of the accident. The claimants made a claim for a sum of

Rs.40,00,000/-.

4.The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company, contending

that the rider of the motor cycle was a minor and unlicensed person. It is

because of the negligence of the rider, the accident had occurred and hence,

Insurer of the lorry cannot be mulcted with the liability. It also termed the

compensation claimed as excessive.

5.The Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence found that the

lorry driver was responsible for the accident to a larger extent and it fixed

contributory negligence on the part of the two wheeler rider at 15%. Having

held so, the Tribunal worked out the compensation by taking the monthly

income at Rs.10,000/-. Adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting

50% towards personal expenses, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of

dependency at Rs.15,12,000/-. It also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- each

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1556 of 2023

for loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and

affection. In all, the Tribunal computed the compensation at Rs.15,82,000/-

and awarded a sum of Rs.13,44,700/-, after deducting 15% towards the

quantum of contributory negligence. Aggrieved, the claimants are on

appeal, complaining that the quantum of compensation is too low.

6.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

as well as Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent /

Insurance Company. Notice to the first respondent is dispensed with in

viewof the fact that she remained ex parte before the tribunal.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant would fault the Tribunal

for not having fixed the monthly income at Rs.12,000/-, despite the fact that

sufficient proof of income has been provided by the claimants. She would

point out that when the employer has been examined as P.W.3 and Ex.P5,

salary certificate has been marked, the Tribunal was not right in disbelieving

the same, that too, in the absence of any contra evidence on the side of the

respondents. The learned counsel would also point out that the Tribunal has