Madras High Court
S.Lakshmi vs V.Murugan on 21 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.958 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.958 of 2016
1.S.Lakshmi
2.T.Senthil Ravi ... Appellants
Vs
1.V.Murugan
2.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,
Subramaniyan Building, 2nd Floor,
No.1, Club House Road, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2. ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and the judgment dated 30.01.2015
made in M.C.O.P.No.3862 of 2013 On the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (II Small Causes Court) Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondents : R1 – No such address
Mr.E.Rajadurai for R2
Mr.M.B.Raghavan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.958 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of
compensation under the impugned Award dated 30.01.2015 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai in
M.C.O.P.No.3862 of 2013.
2.The Appellants/claimants are the legal representatives and dependants
of the deceased S.Suganya who died on 03.04.2013 as a result of an accident
caused by a vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second
respondent.
3.The deceased was a first year Engineering student at Dr.K.Vasudevan
College of Engineering Technology and was 19 years old at the time of the
accident.
4.The Tribunal under the impugned Award directed the second
respondent to pay the Appellants/claimants a compensation of Rs.17,45,000/-
for the death of Suganya as a result of the accident caused by the insured
vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.958 of 2016
5.The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
Appellants/claimants are detailed hereunder:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Pecuniary loss is calculated as 16,20,000/-
Rs.7,500 x 12 x 18
Funeral expenses 25,000/-
Love and Affection 1,00,000/-
Total Rs.17,45,000
6.Heard Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel for the Appellants and
Mr.E.Rajadurai, learned counsel for the second respondent.
7.The Tribunal under the impugned Award has fixed the notional
monthly income of the deceased who was a first year Engineering student at
Dr.K.Vasudevan College of Engineering Technology at Rs.10,000/-.
8.The year of the accident is 2013. This Court is of the considered view
that the fixation of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- is a correct
assessment and does not call for any interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.958 of 2016
9.There are many Engineering graduates who are either unemployed or
underemployed. There is no evidence adduced by the Appellants before the
Tribunal with regard to the reputation of Dr.K.Vasudevan College of
Engineering Technology where the deceased was studying at the time of the
accident. Therefore, the Appellants claim seeking for fixation of higher
monthly income for the deceased has to be necessarily rejected as the notional
monthly income of Rs.10,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is a just one.
10.The Tribunal has awarded 50% towards loss of future prospects
which is not in accordance with the settled position of law as according to
Sarla Verma judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the loss of future
prospects for the Appellants/claimants has to be fixed only at 40% since the
deceased was only a student and was aged 19 years at the time of the accident.
11.The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards
funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and has
awarded Rs.16,20,000/- towards pecuniary loss by applying the correct
multiplier of 18. There is no scope for interference with regard to those heads
of compensation also. The overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the impugned Award is a just compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.958 of 2016
12.It is also submitted by the respective learned counsels that the appeal
filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal has already been dismissed by the Division Bench of
this Court in C.M.A.No.1845 of 2015.
13.For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this Appeal.
Accordingly, this Appeal shall stand dismissed. The second respondent is
directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and costs as
assessed by the Tribunal after deducting the amount already deposited if any to
the credit of MCOP.No.3862 of 2013 within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the
Tribunal shall transfer the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.3862 of
2013 to the bank of the Appellants/claimants through RTGS within a period of
one week thereafter. No costs.
21.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
pam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.958 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
pam
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(II Small Causes Court) Chennai.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.958 of 2016
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
