(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2024 in M.C.O.P.No.126/2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Attur.)
1. This appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Attur, in M.C.O.P.No.126 of 2020 dated 29.02.2024 wherein the claimant is seeking for enhancement of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.
2. The claimant is the wife of the deceased Shanmugam. The case of the claimant is that on 17.10.2020 the deceased was riding a two wheeler from Attur and was proceeding towards Peddanaickenpalayam. At about 2 p.m., the offending vehicle, a Car, belonging to the first respondent, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the rear side of the two wheeler as a result of which the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. A First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No.702 of 2020. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal.
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 driver of the offending vehicle. Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.11,58,340/- under various heads as follows
| Sl.No. | Compensation awarded under the head | Amount (in Rs.) |
| 1. | Loss of dependency | 12,10,044/- |
| 2. | Loss of consortium | 44,000/- |
| 3. | Loss of estate | 16,500/- |
| 4 | Funeral expenses | 16,500/- |
| Total | 12,87,044/- | |
| Less: 10% (D.L.) | 1,28,704/- | |
| Compensation payable | 11,58,340/- |
4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondents.
5. The main ground raised by learned counsel for appellant is that the appellant's husband was a rice merchant and to substantiate the same, the claimant had relied upon Ex.P13, which was the RC copy, which stood in the name of Harsha Traders. It is submitted that the deceased was earning nearly Rs.40,000/- p.m. whereas the Tribunal has fixed only a sum of Rs.12,500/- as notional income, which is on the lower side. The further ground raised is that the Tribunal had attributed 10% contributory negligence against the deceased on the ground that the deceased was not wearing a helmet and did not possess a valid driving license. It is contended that the said finding requires interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for second respondent insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had fixed a just and fair compensation and it does not require the interference of this Court.
7. In the considered view of this Court, the accident had taken place in the year 2020 and the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident. Even in the absence of any proof of income, considering the cost of index, it will be appropriate to fix the notional monthly income at Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ is calculated as follows:
Monthly Income : Rs. 20,000/-
Add:10% future prospects : Rs. 2,000/-
------------------
Rs. 22,000/-
Less: Personal expenses (1/2) : Rs. 11,000/-
------------------ Rs. 11,000/- x 12
------------------
Annual income : Rs. 1,32,000/-
Multiplier : x 11
------------------
Loss of income : Rs.14,52,000/-
------------------
8. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head ‘transport expenses’ and this Court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head. The compensation fixed under the other heads is reasonable and does not require the interference of this Court.
9. The Tribunal has fixed interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and the same requires interference of this Court and accordingly, it is fixed at 7.5% p.a. Further, the Tribunal had attributed 10% contributory negligence against the deceased on the ground that he did not possess a valid driving license and was not wearing a helmet. Mere non-possession of driving license would not automatically result in attributing contributory negligence. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar J. v. National Insurance Company Limited & others [(2018) 1 SCC 750]. Similarly, nonwearing of helmet by itself cannot result in attributing negligence. The law on this issue is too well settled.
10. In the light of the above discussion, this Court modifies the compensation in the following manner:
| Sl.No. | Compensation awarded under the head | Amount by the Tribunal (in Rs.) | Amount awarded by this Court (in Rs.) |
| 1. | Loss of dependency | 12,10,044/- | 12,10,044/- |
| 2. | Loss of consortium | 44,000/- | 44,000/- |
| 3. | Loss of estate | 16,500/- | 16,500/- |
| 4. | Funeral expenses | 16,500/- | 16,500/- |
| 5. | Transport expenses | - | 10,000/- |
| Total | 12,87,044/- | 15,39,000/- | |
| Less: 10% (D.L.) | 1,28,704/- | - | |
| Compensation payable | 11,58,340/- | 15,39,000/- |
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.