Amudhavalli v. Mahaboob Basha

JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the award dated 07.09.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.30 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Hosur. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased Ramu for enhancement of compensation and on the liability issue.

¶2The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

¶3The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Ramu under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of Ramu, S/o. Munusami, who died in a road traffic accident that took place on 27.05.2019.

¶4The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing arguments advanced by either side, granted compensation of Rs.11,67,000/- and after deducting 15% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, a sum of Page No.2/9 Rs.9,91,950/- was quantified as compensation by the Tribunal. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are given hereunder: S.No Head Amount

¶1For loss of dependency Rs.10,12,000/-

¶2For Transportation charges Rs. 5,000/-

¶3For Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-

¶4For loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-

¶5For loss of consortium Rs. 1,20,000/- Total Rs.11,67,000/- Less

15%

towards contributory negligence (-) Rs. 1,75,050/-Net compensation Rs. 9,91,950/-

¶5The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would vehemently contend that the deceased was working as a Security guard and in this regard, his employer/P.W.3 was examined and salary certificates were also marked as P.W.18 to P.W.22. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-, which is very less. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was a pedestrian who met with an accident and contributory Page No.3/9 negligence upon the deceased was fixed at 15%, which is not correct and seeks to set aside the same.

¶6Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company would strenuously argue that in the given circumstances, the amounts awarded under different heads by the Tribunal appear to be reasonable and prays to confirm the same.

¶7The manner in which the accident took place is not in dispute. It has come on record through the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was working as a Security in a private company and was earning a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/-p.a. The Security Manager of the employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.3. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.12,600/-p.m in the year 2019. The salary slips for the month of December 2018 to April 2019 are Exs.P18 to P22. The gross salary drawn by the deceased was Rs.12,600/-as per Ex.P19. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to fix monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-p.m. The Hon'ble Apex Court has standardized the details of future prospects to be added with income while computing loss of dependency. As per Ex.P2/Postmortem Certificate, age of the deceased is taken as 52 years at the relevant point time. For the age group of persons between 50-60, 10% has to be added as future prospects while computing loss of Page No.4/9 dependency. As regards other details, there is no dispute. For computation of loss of dependency, the following formula emerges: Rs.12,000/-+ 10% -1/3 x 12 x 11 m = Rs.11,61,600/-

¶8It is the evidence of ocular witness P.W.2 that the deceased was standing on the roadside to cross the highway and a lorry, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him. During cross-examination of P.W.2, when a suggestion was posed to him that the deceased was crossing the road at the time of accident, he answered in negative. Furthermore, P.W.2 would depose that the deceased had crossed the service road and was waiting to cross the highway. It is pertinent to note that neither the driver of the first respondent nor any ocular witness was examined with regard to this aspect. The Tribunal has observed that the claimants have not established that there was a provision for crossing the highway at that point. FIR reads that the deceased was waiting to cross the highway and P.W.2 has not stated that while the deceased was crossing the road, the accident occurred.

¶9Law is well settled that FIR is not a substantial evidence to rely upon. It can only be used for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction. When there is no clear evidence against the deceased to the effect that while he was crossing the road, the accident occurred, Page No.5/9 attributing negligence upon the deceased by the Tribunal cannot be said to be acceptable and therefore, contributory negligence attributed to the deceased to the tune of 15% stands set aside. As regards amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads appear to be reasonable and acceptable and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The amounts awarded by this Court, as mentioned supra, are reworked and tabulated hereunder: S. No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or enhanced or granted or reduced For loss of dependency Rs.10,12,000/- Rs.11,61,600/- enhanced For

Transportation charges Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- confirmed For Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- confirmed For loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- confirmed For loss of consortium Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/- confirmed Total Rs.11,67,000/- Rs.13,26,600/- Less 15% towards contributory negligence Rs. 1,75,050/- Net compensation Rs. 9,91,950/- Rs.13,16,600/- enhanced by Rs.3,24,650/- Page No.6/9

¶10In the result,

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed. No costs.

(ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.9,91,950/- to Rs.13,16,600/-.

(iii) The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount i.e., Rs.13,16,600/- (less the amount already deposited, if any) along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filings of the claim petition till the date of realisation to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.30 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Hosur, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

(iv) On such deposit being made, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their share award amount, as apportioned by the Tribunal, with interest, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.

(v) The claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. Page No.7/9

(vi) The Tribunal below shall disburse the amount upon production of the certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee by the claimants.

22.01.2026 Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order : Yes/No apd To

1.The Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Hosur.

¶2The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

Page No.8/9

R.KALAIMATHI, J. apd

22.01.2026 Page No.9/9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI 1.Amudhavalli 2.Sathishkumar 3.Ranjitha ...Appellants vs. 1.Mahaboob Basha 2.The Manager Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8, DIPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapuram, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302 022. ...Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.30 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Hosur. For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj For R-2 : Smt.R.Sreevidhya Page No.1/9