CMA/2552/2023 of M.P.BEENA Vs P.NAGARAJ on 14 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) The petitioners before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are the appellants herein. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Court of Small Causes Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.7229 of 2017.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that on 23.05.2017 at about 14.10 hours the deceased Amar Vinod was driving Maruti Car bearing Registration No.KL-60-H-4105 from North to South on Maduravoyal – Tambaram Bypass Road, Chennai, near Kovoor Rajasthani Temple. At that time, the driver of the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-64-A-8709 which was proceeding ahead of the Car, without any indication applied sudden brake, due to which, the deceased applied brake to stop the Car, however, the Car collided with the rear portion of the Lorry and the deceased sustained serious head injuries and succumbed to injuries in the Hospital the next day.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that the appellants/ parents of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs.80 Lakhs as compensation, however, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent and hence, the claimants are not entitled for compensation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that since the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent applied sudden brake without any indication, the deceased applied brake to stop the Car and the accident occurred, however, the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent, taking advantage of the fact that no one was available in the accident spot, made complaint against the deceased and Ex.R4 – FIR was registered against the deceased and thereafter Ex.R6 – Final report was laid as if the charges were abated on the basis of the death of the deceased and the Tribunal on the basis of Ex.R4 – copy of FIR, Ex.R5 – copy of MVI report and Ex.R6 – copy of final report, dismissed the claim petition, which is not sustainable one.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that

P.W.2 is the eye witness who passed the information with regard to the accident happened on that day to the claimants and he clearly deposed the manner in which the accident happened and his deposition makes it clear that the accident happened since the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent applied sudden brake without any indication, however, the Tribunal discarded the evidence of P.W.2 and believed Ex.R4 to Ex.R6. The learned counsel further submitted that Ex.R4 to Ex.R6 is not supported by official witness and further submitted that even assuming this Court believes Ex.R4 to Ex.R6, this Court may atleast fix 50% negligence as against the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent in terms of the evidence of P.W.2 who is an eye witness.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company submitted that P.W.2 is not an eye witness and he is the witness set up by the claimants for the purpose of claiming compensation and they claim that P.W.2 passed on information about the accident to the first appellant, however, the claimants have not marked the call details regarding the conversation between P.W.2 and first appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent made complaint before the law enforcing agency and Ex.R5 – copy of MVI report clearly demonstrate that the Car driven by the deceased was completely damaged and went under the Lorry which clearly reveal that the deceased not maintained safety distance and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the rear side of the Lorry, thereby, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants claimants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.

8. The accident is not disputed. The claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The claimants claim compensation based on the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 in his deposition deposed that the accident happened since the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent applied sudden brake without any indication.

9. It is un-disputed fact that the law enforcing agency registered FIR against the deceased and Ex.R4 – copy of FIR, Ex.R5 – copy of MVI report and Ex.R6 – copy of final report were marked and P.W.2 in his deposition confirmed the damages in terms of Ex.R5 – copy of MVI report, thereby, the Tribunal fixed the entire negligence on the part of the deceased and dismissed the claim petition. However, the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent who made complaint before the law enforcing agency based on which FIR was registered was not examined before the Tribunal. In the absence of the evidence of the informant of FIR, dis- believing the deposition of P.W.2 is not sustainable one. The Tribunal ought to have fixed some negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Hence, this Court is inclined to fix 50% negligence on the part of the deceased and 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Accordingly this Court fix 50% negligence on the part of the deceased and 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent.

10. Since 50% negligence is fixed on the part of the deceased and 50% negligence is fixed on the part of the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, the appellants/ claimants are entitled for 50% of the compensation amount and the second respondent as the insurer of the vehicle owned by the first respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount.

11. Admittedly, the accident is of the year 2017 and the deceased is a bachelor aged 23 years at the time of death. The claimants claim that the deceased was working as Associate Business Development, Think and Learn

Private Limited, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and to prove the same, they have marked Ex.P15 – appointment letter issued by Think and Learn (BYJU) and Ex.P16 – deceased Andhra Bank statement copy for salary. Hence, this Court fix the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in MANU/SC/1366/2017, 40% of the monthly income has to be awarded for future prospects. Hence, this Court award 40% of the monthly income for future prospects. Since the deceased is a bachelor, ½ of the monthly income has to be deducted for personal expenses. As per the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Varma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009 (2) L.S. 29 (S.C.), the correct multiplier to be adopted is 18. Hence, the amount for loss of dependancy works out to Rs.30,24,000/- [Rs.20,000/- X 40% = Rs.8,000/-; Rs.20,000/- + Rs.8,000/- = Rs.28,000/-; Rs.28,000/- X 1/2 = Rs.14,000/-; Rs.28,000/- - Rs.14,000/- = Rs.14,000/-; Rs.14,000/- X 12 X 18 = Rs.30,24,000/-].

12. Accordingly, this Court awards a sum of Rs.30,24,000/- towards loss of dependancy; a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges; a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; a sum of Rs.80,000/- [Rs.40,000/- each] towards loss of love and affection. [Total – Rs.31,44,000/-]

13. The appellants/ claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,72,000/- [50% of Rs.31,44,000/-] as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The appellants are entitled for equal share in the amount awarded, i.e., Rs.7,86,000/- each.

14. The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit 50% of the entire compensation amount awarded by this Court, i.e., Rs.15,72,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Court of Small Causes Chennai, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellants/ claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share, on making proper and necessary application before the Tribunal.

15. The appellants/ claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay, if any, in filing the appeal. The appellants/ claimants are directed to pay the requisite Court fee for the compensation amount, if required. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Court of Small Causes Chennai, shall disburse the compensation amount upon production of certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee by the appellants/ claimants.

16. The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Court of Small Causes Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.7229 of 2017, is set aside. No costs. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

M.DHANDAPANI, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. pri CMA No. 2552 of 2023 14-10-2026