C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
1.Doss
2.Renugmbal
3.Venkatesan
4.Siva
5.Ramesh ... Appellants
Vs
1.Ravi
2.The Divisional Manager,
Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited,
No.145/131, Ground Floor,
Nelson Manickam Road,
Mehta Nagar, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.08.2010
made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.554 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : M/s.A.Subadra
For R1 : Ex-parte
For R2 : Mr.E.Rajadurai
for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
JUDGEMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Thiruvannamalai in M.C.O.P.No.554 of 2009, the appellants are before this Court.
2. The facts in brief are as follows :-
The petitioners had filed the above claim petition seeking compensation for the death of Kasiammal, wife of the first petitioner and mother of the petitioners 2 to 5 herein in an accident on 24.08.2009. On the said date, the said Kasiammal was walking near Rajendiran's land between Vellakullam Colony and Kattumalainur. At that time, she was hit by the first respondent's vehicle, namely a Yamaha Motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-25-L-1784, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. On account of the impact, she had sustained injuries and fracture all over her body and was rushed to Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai for first aid treatment.
2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
3.They would submit that the accident had occurred only on account of the negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's vehicle and the deceased was aged about 50 years. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was earning money by working as an agricultural coolie and maintaining cattle and goat. They had set out that she was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was sought for by the petitioners.
4.The first respondent had filed counter stating that the vehicle was insured and therefore, the insurer was liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent/Insurance Company had filed a counter disputing the age, income and occupation of the deceased and stated that the amount of compensation claimed was very high and not commensurate to the injuries sustained by the deceased.
5.The Tribunal ultimately had held that the driver of the first respondent vehicle was responsible for the accident as he is driving the same 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017 in a rash and negligent manner and awarded the compensation of Rs.3,17,000/-. The Tribunal while calculating the compensation under the head of loss of earning had taken a sum of Rs.3,000/- as notional value and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses had adopted a multiplier of 11.
6.Challenging the said award as inadequate, the appellants have moved this Court.
7.M/s.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has adopted just a sum of Rs.3,000/- though the appellants pleaded that the deceased earned a monthly income of Rs.5,000/. She would further submit that the Tribunal has not taken note of the future prospects and that apart, the Tribunal ought to have adopted a multiplier of 13 taking into account the fact that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident.
4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
8.Further, she would submit that the Tribunal has erred in deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards personal expenses totally overlooking the fact that there are five dependants.
9.On the other hand, Mr.E.Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal below has passed a very reasonable award and that the same does not require any re-consideration.
10.Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11.The notional income adopted by the Tribunal below appears to be very low. It is seen that the accident had taken place on 24.03.2009 and the deceased is stated to be an agricultural coolie and also earning money through her cattle and goat. The appellants have stated that her monthly income was about Rs.5,000/- and there is no serious rebuttal to this claim. The said amount can be adopted as the notional income. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
12.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, no amount has been added towards future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would be a sum of Rs.6,250/- after adding 25% towards future prospects. Out of this, 1/3 rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, a sum of Rs.4,167/- is available for the family. The annual income of the family would therefore be a sum of Rs.50,004/-. The appropriate multiplier is 13 and not 11 as held by the Tribunal below. Therefore, the amount under the head of loss of dependency stands enhanced to a sum of Rs.6,50,052/-.
Loss of Income Amount in Rs.
Notional income (Per month) 5,000
Add: Future Prospects (Rs.5,000 x 25%) (Per month) 1,250
6,250
Less: Personal expenses (1/3rd) (Rs.6,250/- x 1/3rd) 2,083
4,167
Notional income (Per annum) (Rs.4,167 x 12) 50,004
Multiplier 13
Loss of income (Rs.50,004 x 13) 6,50,052
Total 6,50,052
6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
13.Therefore, the modified compensation payable to the appellants is as follows:
Heads Awarded by Awarded by
the Tribunal this Court
(Amount in (Amount in
Rs.) Rs.)
Loss of earnings 2,64,000 6,50,052
(enhanced)
Loss of love and affection 50,000 50,000
Funeral Expenses 2,000 2,000
Transport Charges 500 500
Damage to cloth and articles 500 500
Total 3,17,000 7,03,052
14.The appeal is allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,17,000/- to Rs.7,03,052/-. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.554 of 2009 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellants/claimants are 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017 permitted to withdraw the award amount falling to their share, along with proportionate accrued interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall not disburse the enhanced amount till such time as the certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee has been produced by the appellants/claimants. In other respects, the Award of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.
06.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order sp To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017 P.T.ASHA, J., sp C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017 06.09.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis