Liability for negligent parking of vehicles on highways warrants joint and several liability of insurers.

On 18.09.2014 at about 3:40 a.m., the deceased was driving a Swift Dzire car (Reg. No. TN 12 9330) on the Tambaram–Puzhal By-Pass Road when, opposite the Ambattur Telephone Exchange, the car hit a tipper lorry; two tipper lorries (TN 21 AF 7558, insured with the appellant Reliance, and TN 21 AD 5107, insured with respondent No. 4 Royal Sundaram) were parked on the by-pass road in a negligent manner

The deceased sustained severe head and multiple injuries and died on the spot

The appellant insurer contended that the lorry was parked on the road's side with goods being transferred, with park lamps glowing and ample space for passage, and that the deceased was himself the tortfeasor who drove rashly

The fourth respondent insurer contended that the deceased drove in the early hours, exhausted and sleepy, and was solely responsible

Relying on eye-witness PW2, the FIR (Ex.P1) and the Final Report (Ex.P15), the Tribunal found both lorry drivers guilty of rash and negligent parking and fastened 50% liability on each insurer

Assessing the deceased as a 24-year-old MBBS House Surgeon at SRMC Medical College Hospital, Porur, earning Rs.30,000/- per month (Ex.P4 Internship Certificate), the Tribunal awarded Rs.37,80,000/- (loss of dependency), Rs.48,000/- (loss of consortium), and Rs.18,000/- each (loss of estate; funeral expenses), totalling Rs.38,64,000/-

Aggrieved, the insurer of lorry TN 21 AF 7558 preferred this appeal challenging both negligence findings and quantum

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent parking of both lorries, including the appellant-insured lorry, thereby fixing 50% liability on the appellant, notwithstanding the plea that the deceased dashed the parked lorry's rear

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the deceased's notional income at Rs.25,000/- per month absent proof of occupation/income, and in granting 40% towards future prospects, rendering the compensation excessive

The Court applied the structured multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as crystallised in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC)], which prescribes multiplier "18" where the deceased is aged 21–25 years and a 50% deduction towards personal expenses of an unmarried deceased

It further applied National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (2) TANMAC 609 (SC)], mandating 40% addition towards future prospects where the deceased is below 40 years of age

The appellate standard applied was whether the Tribunal's award suffers from any infirmity warranting interference

The Court found "no serious dispute" as to the manner of accident: PW2, the eye-witness, categorically deposed to the occurrence, and the FIR (Ex.P1) and Final Report (Ex.P15) corroborated that the lorries were parked wrongly without parking lights or signals; the Death Certificate (Ex.P6) confirmed death from shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained. The finding of concurrent negligence and equal (50/50) apportionment of liability between the two insurers therefore stood affirmed.

The deceased's age of 24 years was established by the Driving Licence (Ex.P9, DOB 30.03.1990), corroborated by the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P2) and Death Certificate (Ex.P6). His employment and income as MBBS House Surgeon at SRMC Hospital were proved by the Internship Certificate (Ex.P4), thereby justifying the notional income of Rs.25,000/- per month. Applying the precedents: Rs.25,000/- + 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi) = Rs.35,000/-; less 50% deduction for an unmarried deceased = Rs.17,500/-; × 12 × multiplier 18 (Sarla Verma) = Rs.37,80,000/- towards loss of dependency.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, confirming the award dated 31.01.2024 passed in MCOP No. 3327 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.