1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRICIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE OF NAMAKKAL

MCPO No:45/2012

1. Parimala @ Parimalam
2. Palanisamy .. Petitioners

Vs

1. M/s. Mol Auto Logistrics

(P) Ltd Rep. by its Manager

2. Cholamandalam MS
Insurance Co. Ltd .. Respondents

SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE

PETITIONERS

May it please your Honour!

It is a case of claiming compensation under The Motor Vehicles Act
for the death of Victim Prasanth in a motor vehicle accident which took
place on 17.12.2011. The above named petitioners are unfortunate
parents of the deceased Prasanth.
NARRATION OF ACCIDENT:
On 17.02.2011 at about 15.10 pm. while the Deceased
Prasanth was riding a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No: TN-20-BR-1667
along with one Pillion rider from his engineering college towards
Poonamalle on Bangalore – Chennai Highways Road, near Papan
Chatiram Union Middle School, at that time one container Lorry bearing
Reg.No: TN 04 AE 0714, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner and in high speed without observing road Traffic rules hit the
Deceased’s Motor Bike from behind and caused an accident and due to
the accident the above said Prasanth (since deceased) sustained grievous
injuries and died on the spot itself. The Poonamalle Police has registered
a case in crime No:366/2011 U/s. 279 337 & 304(A) against the driver of
the Lorry bearing Regn.No: TN-04-AE-0714.
Further it is humbly submitted that,
During the time of enquiry, to prove the case of the petitioners there
was two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2.Those are,
1. Parimala @ Parimalam (The First Petitioner Herein) - as PW1,
2. Mahesh (Eye Witness) - as PW2.
 2

And on the side of the petitioners as many as 18 documents ie from

ExA1 to ExA18 were exhibited. Those are,
S. Date Particulars Nature Remarks
No.
1. 17.02.2011 First Information Report True Copy Ex-A1
2. 17.02.2011 Accident Intimation Report True Copy Ex-A2
3. 17.02.2011 Rough Sketch True Copy Ex-A3
4. 18.02.2011 Post Mortem Report True Copy Ex-A4
5. 20.11.2009 Registration Certificate of Xerox Ex-A5
Offended Vehicle (TN 04 AE
0714)
6. 26.10.2010 Insurance Policy of Offended Xerox Ex-A6
to Vehicle(TN 04 AE 0714)
25.10.2011
7. 22.02.1999 Driving License of the Driver Xerox Ex-A7
of Offended Vehicle (TN 04
AE 0714)
8. Driving License of Deceased Notary Ex-A8
Prasanth Attested
Copy
9. 02.05.2011 Death Certificate of Deceased True Copy Ex-A9
Prasanth
10. 07.10.2011 Legal Heir ship Certificate of True Copy Ex-A10
Deceased Prasanth
11. College ID of Deceased Notary Ex-A11
Prasanth Attested
Copy
12. 2005-2009 Petitioner’s Family Card Notary Ex-A12
Attested
Copy
13. +2 Mark sheet of Deceased Notary Ex-A13
Prasanth Attested
Copy
14. 13.01.2005 Certificate of Karate issued to Original Ex-A14
Deceased Prasanth
15. 17.06.2001 Certificate of Karate issued to Original Ex-A15
Deceased Prasanth
16. Certificate of Participation in Original Ex-A16
Gymnastics provided to
Deceased Prasanth
17. 25.08.2010 Certificate of Appreciation Original Ex-A17
issued by Rottary Central –
TTK – VHS Blood Bank to
Deceased Prasanth
18. 05.10.2010 Certificate of Participation Original Ex-A18
issued to Deceased
Prasanth in the event of
Zano’10
 3

AGE, ADDRESS AND EUDCAITON OF THE DECEASED:-

The deceased Prasanth was only 19 years of age at the time of
accident. The same has been proved by ExA8 – Driving License of the
Deceased and ExA13 – 12th standard Mark Statement of the deceased.
The address of the deceased has been proved by ExA12 – Family card
of the petitioners family. The victim Prasanth was studying second year
Engineering Course at the time of his death. His educational qualification
has been proved by ExA11 – The Collage Identity Card of the
Deceased.
PETITIONERS RELATIONSHIP WITH DECEASED:
The petitioners are respectively mother and father of the
deceased Prasanth. The same has been proved by ExA10 – The Legal
Heirship certificate of the deceased.
NEGLIGENCE:
The case related accident, happened only due to the gross
negligence of the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No: TN 04 AE 0714,
belonging to the first Respondent. I hope the following points would
clearly establish the negligence of the Driver of the 1 st Respondent.
Those are:
i) The above said lorry driver hit the deceased’s vehicle from

behind on Bangalore – Chennai Main Road, and caused a fatal

accident. The ExA3 – Rough Sketch of the SOC and the witness
deposition of eye witness ie PW2 – Thiru Mahesh (Eye Witness) clearly
proving that the deceased was driving his bike in the extreme left side of
the road and by observing all traffic rules properly, while the driver of the
1st respondent lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner and in high speed without observing road Traffic rules hit the
Deceased’s Motor Bike from behind and caused case related accident .
ii) The Poonamalle Police has registered a crime case in
Cr.No;366/2011 under sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC against the
lorry driver. The ExA1 – FIR proves the same.
Therefore from the above said facts can be concluded that the
gross negligence for this accident was only on the part of the driver of the
1st Respondent.
LIABILTY TO PAY COMPENSATION:
 4

It is proved the from the points detailed in supra that the gross
negligence for this accident was only on the part of the driver of the Lorry
with Reg No: TN 04 AE 0714. The ExA5 – Registration Certificate of
accused vehicle proves that the Registered owner of the offending
vehicle is 1st Respondent. Therefore the first Respondent vicariously liable
to the same. The ExA6 – Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle
proves that the second Respondent is insurer of the vehicle. Therefore
the first and second Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation.
FACTUM AND CAUSE OF DEATH OF THE VICTIM:
The factum of the death of the victim has been proved by the
ExA9 – Death Certificate of victim Prasanth while so the ExA4 – The
Postmortem Certificate proves that the death of the victim had been
caused only by the case involved accident.
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION AND OTHER POTENTIALS OF THE
DECEASED:
The ExA11 – The Collage Identity Card describes that the
deceased at the time of accident was a second year Engineering (EEE)
student in a reputed college namely Saveetha Engineering College,
Thandalam, Chennai. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering from
the prestigious college, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have
got a good job. There would not have been any difficulty for him in getting
some decent job in the private , public and Government sector. If the
deceased had not died in the accident, he would join government service
and got selected at least in category of Assistant engineer post. Now-a-
days, Assistant engineers are drawing a sum of Rs,60,000/- per month
as salary. So, Wherever the deceased would join after completing his
engineering course, he would have a fair chance of some promotion and
remote chance of some high position. Hence It is fair and reasonable to
assess the earnings of the deceased at Rs. 60,000 per month taking the
salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public
employment as the basis.
LOSS OF INCOME:
Even though the deceased was second year engineering student,
he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month through his project work
which was done by him on behalf of Senior Students of the college.
 5

Those facts were proved by the witnessing of the PW2 – Thiru Mahesh
(Eye Witness) The deceased was doing extracurricular activities such as
“Karate” , and “Gymnastics” and had obtained appreciation certificates.
The ExA13 to ExA18 reveals brilliance of the Deceased.
As an Engineering college student the deceased has got the latent
ability, talent and potential to earn substantially in future soon after the
completion of his course. As a future engineer the deceased would have
great prospect to earn substantially.
In this count the following authorities are submitted.
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.,
Vs
Ganga Devi & Ors.
(Reported in 2010 (3) ACC 6)
which related to the death of a student (studying medicine) who was doing
internship and was to be awarded the MBBS degree in a short time and
met with an accident on 12.08.2003, the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of ` 9,35,352/- on the basis of the minimum wages of a
Graduate. This Court observed that although the deceased was getting a
stipend of 5,000/- per month at the time of his death due to the accident,
he would have ultimately joined as a doctor at a salary ranging between `
16,000/- per month to ` 25,000/- per month. Thus, the average monthly
income of the deceased was taken as ` 18,000/- and after adding 50%
towards future prospects, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.
21,36,000/-.
In Ramesh Chand Joshi
Vs
New India Assurance Company
MAC APP 212-213/2006 decided on 20.01.2010 by Delhi High Court
which related to the death of a of a BE (Bio-Technology) First year student
of Delhi College of Engineer (DCE) who died in a accident occurred on
30.07.2004. The Honorable High Court of Delhi took the potential income
of the Deceased as Rs.38,333/- per month.
In The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Limited Chennai & Others
Versus
K. Murugesan & Others
(reported in 2013 (0) supreme(madras)3904 = 2014(1)TNMAC370)
In this above case the deceased is an engineering Graduate, bachelor
and not secured any job who died in a motor vehicular accident on
 6

15.09.2008 The Tribunal fixed his income Rs.20,000/- per month and
Honorable High court also confirmed the same.
In all the above cases discussed above the accident which
happened in the years of 2003,2004 and 2008 respectively. But the case
on hand the accident took place in the year of 2011.Therefore the
Honorable Tribunal may take atleast Rs.30,000/- as monthly income by
considering all the above facts.
FUTURE PROSPECTS:
The future prospects of an Engineer is more compared to other
fields. The Engineers are more in demand in any part of the world. In this
electronic era, the service of the Engineers are more required. In a
number of Judgements, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that arriving at
income, the future prospects of the deceased should be taken into
consideration. I this case, 50% is to be taken as future prospects.In this
count the following authorities are submitted.
In The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport
Corporation Limited Chennai & Others
Versus
K. Murugesan & Others
(reported in 2013 (0) supreme(madras)3904 = 2014(1)TNMAC370)
In this above case the deceased is an engineering Graduate, bachelor
and not secured any job who died in a motor vehicular accident on
15.09.2008 The Tribunal fixed his income Rs.20,000/- per month and had
omitted to add future prospectus. Upon appeal The Honorable High court
confirmed the monthly income as Rs.20.000/- and also added 50% as
future prospects.
PERSONAL EXPENDITURE:
In a recent Supreme court Judgement passed in
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Vs
Deo Patodi and others
reported in 2009 (8) Scale 194,
it has been held that deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is the
ordinary rule in India.

in Fakeerappa and another

Vs
 7

Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and others,

Reported in (2004) 2 SCC 473
the Hon'ble Supreme Court deducted only 1/3rd towards personal
expenses from the income of the bachelor. Similar is the view taken by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in
in Bilkish
Vs
United India Insurance Company Ltd., and another
(reported in (2008) 4 SCC 259)

&
in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Vs
Sarojamma and another
(reported in (2008) 5 SCC 142)
Are also the similar view had been taken by our Apex Court.
Therefore in this case deducting 1/3 from the net income would
just and reasonable.
MULTIPLIER:
Though the age of the deceased in this case was only 19 years,
since he was an unmarried, the age of the parents only can be considered
and the appropriate multiplier only of that can be adopted.
Therefore, as per evidence ExA7, the completed aged of the 1 st
Claimant ie the age of mother of the deceased at the time of accident
was only 43 years the appropriated multiplier to the age group of 42 to 45
as per “sarla verma” case is 15.
To all the above counts the following authority is submitted:
Smt. Sarla Verma & others
Vs
Delhi Transport Corporation & another
(reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1(SC))
LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION:
In The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Limited Chennai & Others
Versus
K. Murugesan & Others
(reported in 2013 (0) supreme(madras)3904 = 2014(1)TNMAC370)
 8

In the above case it was held by our Honorable High Court that “On the
head of loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded only
Rs.50,000/-, which is in the opinion of this Court, is very meagre and we
are inclined to grant Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.1 lakh each) to the aged parents.
Therefore the same may be adopted this case also.
Therefore as prayed in the petition the case of the petitioners may
be allowed.

Namakkal
22.09.2016 Counsel for the Petitioners.

IN THE COURT OF THE

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE OF
NAMAKKAL
9

MCPO No:45/2012

1. Parimala @ Parimalam
2. Palanisamy
.. Petitioners

Vs

1. M/s. Mol Auto Logistrics

(P) Ltd Rep. by its Manager

2. Cholamandalam MS
Insurance Co. Ltd
… Respondents

……………………………………….
SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENTS
SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL
OF THE PETITIONER
………………………………………..

By Counsel:
Ka.Jeyaprakash, B.A.,B.L.,
(MS No:310/2001)
Advocate,
# 74-Dr.Sankaran Road,
Namakkal -637001.