Madras High Court
Gangulamma vs Mokkala Bharathi on 28 April, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.1692 of 2020 & 1309 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.Nos.1692 of 2020 & 1309 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.6630 of 2021
C.M.A.No.1692 of 2020
1. Gangulamma
W/o.Late Chalapathi
2. Madhusudan
S/o.Late Chalapathi
3. Srikanth
S/o.Late Chalapathi
4. Rajesh
S/o.Late Chalapathi ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Mokkala Bharathi
D/o.M.Krishna Mohan Goud
2. M/s.IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,
Having its Office at
No.28, 1st and 2nd Floor,
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. ... Respondents
C.M.A.No.1309 of 2021
M/s.IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,
No.28, 1st and 2nd Floor,
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. ... Appellant
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.1692 of 2020 & 1309 of 2021
Vs.
1. Gangulamma
W/o.Late Chalapathi
2. Madhusudan
S/o.Late Chalapathi
3. Srikanth
S/o.Late Chalapathi
4. Rajesh
S/o.Late Chalapathi
5. Mokkala Bharathi
D/o.M.Krishna Mohan Goud ... Respondents
Common Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated
28.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1012 of 2015, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Ponneri.
CMA.No.1692 of 2020
For Appellants : Ms.A.Subadra for Mr.K.M.Ramesh
For Respondents :
For R1 : Exparte
For R2 : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
CMA.No.1309 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.J.Michael Visuvassam
For Respondents :
For R1 to R4 : Ms.A.Subadra for Mr.K.M.Ramesh
For R5 : Exparte
COMMON JUDGMENT
By this common judgment both these appeal are being disposed of.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.1692 of 2020 & 1309 of 2021
2. C.M.A.No.1692 of 2020 has been filed by the claimants for
enhancement of compensation and C.M.A.No.1309 of 2021 has been
filed by the Insurance Company.
3. In C.M.A.No.1692 of 2020, the appellants/claimants have asked
for enhancement of compensation by another sum of Rs.1,47,500/-. The
insurance company has asked for reduction of compensation of
Rs.4,20,000/- by stating that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a lesser
amount of compensation.
4. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased
as Rs.9,500/- per month and applying multiplier of 15 to award the above
compensation.
5. The deceased-Chalapathi was stated to be engaged in catering
business and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. On behalf of the
2nd respondent/Insurance Company, it is stated that during deposition, the
1st appellant-P.W.1 has admitted that the deceased was an employee who
was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and therefore it was
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.1692 of 2020 & 1309 of 2021
incumbent on the part of the appellants/claimants to substantiate that the
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. It is further
submitted that the Tribunal has considered a higher notional income of
Rs.9,500/- as compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
respondents. I have perused the impugned Judgment and decree and the
evidences on record and the deposition of witnessess that were marked
before the Tribunal.
7. The deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident
and therefore the Tribunal ought to have applied correct multiplier as 13
instead it has applied 15. It has considered the notional income as
Rs.9,500/- per month.
8. In my view, the aforesaid amount of Rs.9,500/- is
disproportionately low. Considering the year of the accident in 2015, for
the purpose of awarding compensation, this Court is inclined to consider
the notional income of the deceased as Rs.13,500/- per month. Since the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.1692 of 2020 & 1309 of 2021
deceased was aged about 50 years, was working in an unauthorized
sector, there shall be an addition of 10% towards future prospects.
9. The deceased appears to be supporting his family concerns, his
wife and three children aged about 28, 27 & 24 years. Nevertheless, in
the indian set up it has to be considered that all of them are living as joint
family in absence of contra evidence. Therefore, there shall be deduction
of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased.
10. In the light of the above, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is re-computed as follows:-
Heads and Calculation Amount
Loss of earning capacity:-
Monthly Income : Rs.13,500/-
Add: *Future Prospects at 10%
(13,500 x 10/100) : Rs. 1,350/-
----------------
: Rs.14,850/-
Less: Personal Expenses 1/4th
(14,850 x 1/4) : Rs. 3,713/-
----------------
: Rs. 3,713/-
Annual Contribution to the family
(3,713 x 12) : Rs.44,556/-
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.1692 of 2020 & 1309 of 2021
Heads and Calculation Amount
**Multiplier 13 (44,556 x 13) : Rs.5,79,228/- Rs.5,79,228/-
Loss of consortium to the appellant
Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection to the 2nd to 4th Rs. 75,000/-
appellants (Rs.25,000/- each)
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Transportation Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.7,34,228/-
Rounded off to
Rs.7,34,230/-
* Future prospects is added by this Court at 10% as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
** Proper Multiplier of 13 is fixed by this court as per the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 12.
11. The 1st appellant/1st claimant is directed to pay the deficit court
fee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Only after such deposit of deficit court fee, the Registry
shall draft the decree of this Judgment.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.1692 of 2020 & 1309 of 2021
12. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is however directed to
deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.7,34,230/- after deducting
amount already deposited by it 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 within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
13. On such deposit being made by the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company, the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw their
respective shares in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal,
together with interest accrued thereon, less the amount already
withdrawn if any, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal.
While filing such application, the appellants/claimants shall produce a
certified copy of the decree of this Judgment as a proof of having paid
the deficit court fee.
14. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants in
C.M.A.No.1692 of 2020 is partly allowed and C.M.A.No.1309 of 2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 7 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.1692 of 2020 & 1309 of 2021
C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb
filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. No cost. Consequently,
connected Civil Miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.04.2021
arb
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Note:
After the 1st appellant deposited the deficit court fee, the
Registry is directed to draft the decree.
To:
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
IV Additional District Court, Ponneri.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madras High Court.
C.M.A.Nos.1692 of 2020 & 1309 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.6630 of 2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 8 of 8
