C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
1.Divya Kumari
2.Jeet Gupta (Minor)
3.Hasjit Gupta (Minor)
(Minor appellants 2 and 3 represented by
their mother, 1st appellant, next friend
and guardian)
4.Aruna Devi ... Appellants
Vs.
1.S.R.S. Travels
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr.K.T.Rajasekar, No.321/3, TSP Road
Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 002.
(1st respondent set exparte in lower Court
and hence, notice to the 1st respondent is
dispensed with)
2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited
No.140, Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai-34. ... Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2018 made
in M.C.O.P.No.8749 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.B.Siva Kollappan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 05.12.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.8749 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P.No.8749 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai. They filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.4 Crores as compensation for the death of one Indrajit Gupta, who died in the accident that took place 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 on 30.10.2015.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company being insurer of the said bus to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- as compensation to the appellants.
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident, he was working as a General Manager (Operations Costal Region) ISS SDB Global Company as well as in private service and was earning a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, the appellants have examined one Rajasekaran as 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 P.W.2 and marked the documents as Ex.P6 to P8, P11 and P22 to P26. The Tribunal without considering the same, fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.60,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The appellants have spent a sum of Rs.6,55,887/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.P19/ medical bills. The Tribunal failed to award the same towards medical expenses. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contended that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not meagre. The Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards income tax while arriving compensation towards loss of dependancy. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The appellants have not made out any case for enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and their name 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for them either in person or through counsel.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and perused the entire materials available on record.
9.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of the appellants that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a General Manager in (Operations Costal Region) ISS SDB Security Services Private Limited as well as in Shell India Markets Private Limited and was earning a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. To substantiate their contention, the appellants have produced documents such as salary slips, appointment order, educational qualification, PAN card, Form 16 and bank passbook as Exs.P6 to P8, P11 to P18, P22 to P26 and P28 and examined one Rajasekaran as P.W.2. At the time of accident, the deceased was working in ISS SDB Security Services Private Limited. A perusal of Ex.P26/salary slip of the deceased for the months of August and September 2015 reveals the gross salary of the 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 deceased is Rs.87,852/-. After deducting Rs.40/- towards death relief fund, Rs.4,800/- towards Provident Fund, Rs.20.87 towards Provisional Tax and Rs.6,653/- towards TDS, net salary was shown as Rs.76,338/- and the same was credited in his bank account. The Tribunal without considering the said document Ex.P26/salary slips, held that variable allowances and others to the tune of Rs.26,000/- and probable IT has to be deducted from the net salary. After holding so, the Tribunal erroneously fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/-. There is no particulars about the allowances to the tune of Rs.26,000/-. Unless the respondents proved that said allowance is only for the benefit of the deceased and it is not for the benefit of entire family, the same cannot be deducted from the gross salary of the deceased. The appellants have produced bank pass book of the deceased and the same was marked as Ex.P28, wherein a sum of Rs.76,338/- was credited. Considering the salary mentioned in Ex.P26/salary slip and Ex.P28/bank pass book, the monthly salary of the deceased is fixed as Rs.87,852/-. As per Ex.P17/PAN card of the deceased, the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident The Tribunal following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC (Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), has rightly granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier '15'. There are four dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses. The Tribunal failed to deduct any amount towards income tax. The accident has occurred on 30.10.2015. During the financial year 2015-2016, upto Rs.2,50,000/-, there is nil tax. Thus, the calculation for arriving annual income is as follows :-
Monthly salary of the deceased ... Rs.87,852.00 40% enhancement towards future prospects ... Rs.35,140.80
------------------
Rs.1,22,992.80
------------------
Annual income (1,22,992.80 x 12) ... Rs.14,75,913.60 rounded off to Rs.14,75,914/-
Income Tax Slab for financial year 2015-2016 Upto Rs.2,50,000/- - Nil From Rs.2,50,001/- to Rs.5,00,000/- (10%) [ Rs.2,50,000/- X 10%] - Rs.25,000.00 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- (20%) [Rs.5,00,000/- X 20%) - Rs.1,00,000.00 Above Rs.10,00,000/- (30%) [Rs.14,75,914/- (-) Rs.10,00,000/-
= Rs.4,75,914/- X 30%] -
Rs.1,42,774.20
---------------
Rs.2,67,774.20
---------------
Annual income after deducting income tax (Rs.14,75,914/- – Rs.2,67,774.20) - Rs.12,08,139.80 rounded off to Rs.12,08,140/-
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.1,35,91,575/- (Rs.12,08,140/- X 15 X 3/4).
9(i). As far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Tribunal failed to grant any amount towards medical expenses is concerned, from Ex.P19/medical bills of the deceased, it is seen that appellants have filed only xerox copy of the medical bills. The Tribunal considering Ex.P19, has rightly rejected the said document holding that the appellants could have reimbursed the said amount from the employer of the 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 deceased or from the medical insurance and did not grant any compensation towards medical expenses. The said reasoning of the Tribunal is valid and is not interfered with.
9(ii). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the appellants 2 to 4, which is meagre. Considering the the age of the appellants 2 and 3, who are 9 years and 4 years respectively at the time of accident and the 4th appellant is the mother of the deceased, who lost her son at the age of 62 years, they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection.
9(iii). The appellants are residing at Ayanavaram, Chennai. The accident has occurred at Semmedu Sugar Mill on Gingee to Tiruvannamalai Main Road. The appellants would have incurred some amount towards transportation charges. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards transportation charges. Hence, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S.No Description Amount Amount awarded Award
awarded by by this Court confirmed or
Tribunal (Rs) enhanced or
(Rs) granted or
reduced
1. Loss of 1,13,40,000 1,35,91,575 Enhanced
dependency
2. Loss of estate 15,000 15,000 Confirmed
3. Funeral 15,000 15,000 Confirmed
expenses
4. Loss of 40,000 40,000 Confirmed
consortium to
the 1st appellant
5. Loss of love 90,000 1,20,000 Enhanced
and affection to
the appellants 2
to 4
6. Transportation - 10,000 Granted
Total 1,15,00,000 1,37,91,575 Enhanced by
Rs.22,91,575/-
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,15,00,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.1,37,91,575/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of petition till the 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 date of deposit. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellants 1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount now determined by this Court, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The share of the minors/appellants 2 and 3 is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks till the minors attain majority. The 1st appellant being the mother of the minor appellants 2 and 3 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the minors. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary Court fee on the enhanced award amount, if any. No costs.
(V.M.V., J) (S.S., J) 21.06.2022 Index : Yes / No kj 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 V.M.VELUMANI,J.
and S.SOUNTHAR,J.
kj To
1.The Chief Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer VR Section High Court Madras.
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022 21.06.2022 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis