Madras High Court
Mangammal vs A.Elumalai on 23 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.2491 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.2491 of 2019
1.Mangammal
2.P.Naga
3.M.Dhatchinamurthy
4.P.Gangammal
5.S.Sumathi
6.M.Velammal ... Appellants
Vs.
1.A.Elumalai
2.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd,
C/o.Motor III Party Claims Office,
No.6, Haddows Road, Chennai – 6. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2018
made in M.C.O.P.No.3728 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judge at
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.T.R.Balachandran
For Respondents : Mr.E.Rajadurai for
M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates for R2
R1 - Exparte
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 7
C.M.A.No.2491 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The claimants are the appellants in this appeal. They are aggreived
by the impugned judgment and decree in so far as quantum of
compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal. By the impugned
Judgment and decree dated 09.11.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.3728 of 2015
passed in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cheif Judge at Small Causes
Court at Chennai awarded a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- as compensation to the
appellants.
2.In this appeal, the appellants seek for enhancement of
compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly considered
the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- instead of Rs.10,000/-.
It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards Loss of Love and affection to the mother and the sibblings of the
deceased.
3.Defending the impugned judgment and decree, the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submits that the
Tribunal has considered correctly notional income of the deceased and
has awarded a just compensation.
4.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 7
C.M.A.No.2491 of 2019
counsel for the appellant and the respondent.
5.The deceased a bachelor was aged about 42 years who met with
an accident while loading the building rubbish materials on 30.11.2014.
The Tribunal has considered a notional income of Rs.6,500/- perhaps
based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735.
6.Though the deceased was a load man, I am of the view the
income taken for a vegetable vendor in the year 2008 cannot be
considered as the notional income of the deceased in the year 2014.
Therefore, I am inclined to considered the notional income of the
deceased Rs.10,000 as has been stated in the claim statement filed by the
appellant before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation to be
awarded to the appellants/claimants towards loss of dependency is re-
quantified as follows:-
Heads and Calculation Amount
Loss of dependency:-
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 7
C.M.A.No.2491 of 2019
Heads and Calculation Amount
Notional Income : Rs.10,000/-
Add: Future Prospects at 25 %
(10,000 x 25/100) : Rs. 2,500/-
----------------
: Rs.12,500/-
Less: 50% Personal Expenses
(12500x50% = 6250) : Rs. 6,250/-
----------------
: Rs. 6,250/-
Annual Contribution to the family
(6,250 x 12) : Rs. 75,000/-
Multiplier 14 (75000 x 14) : Rs.10,50,000/- Rs.10,50,000/-
Towards Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Transport Charges Rs. 12,500/-
Loss of parental consortium for the 1st appellant Rs.
*as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 40,000/-
Magma Insurance Company Limited Vs
Nanuram @ Chuhruram and others, (2018)
18 SCC 130
Loss of Love and affection for the 2nd to 6th Rs.
appellants 1,00,000/-
20,000 X 5
Total Rs.12,32,500/-
7.Considerig the fact, the other deceased are also stated to be
living with the mother of the deceased at the time of the death of the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 7
C.M.A.No.2491 of 2019
deceased at Door No.21/247 Saminathan Street, Vettuvankani, Chenani –
600 115. This Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.20,000 each to the
other sibblings namely Appellant Nos.2 to 6.
8.The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is therefore directed to
deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.12,32,500/- together
with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the claim
petition till the date of such deposit, less any amount already deposited
by it, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Judgment.
9.On such deposit being made by the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company, the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares
together with interest accrued thereon, less any amount already
withdrawn in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal.
10.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed with the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 7
C.M.A.No.2491 of 2019
above observations. No costs.
23.04.2021
jas
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To:
1.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd,
C/o.Motor III Party Claims Office,
No.6, Haddows Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judge at Small Causes Court, Chennai.
3.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madras High Court.
C.SARAVANAN, J
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 7
C.M.A.No.2491 of 2019
jas
C.M.A.No.2491 of 2019
23.04.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 7 of 7
