Madras High Court
Kalaivani vs The Managing Director on 30 April, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.972 & 1292 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.972 of 2016
and C.M.A.No.1292 of 2016
1.Kalaivani
2.Ravi
3.Kanchana
4.Uma
5.Sundhar Raj
6.Kannika ... Appellants in C.M.A.No.972 of 2016
and respondents in C.M.A.No.1292 of 2016
..Vs..
The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai. ...Respondent in C.M.A.No.972 of 2016
and Appellant in C.M.A.No.1292 of 2016
Prayer in C.M.A.No 972 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award dated
08.01.2016 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2105/2013 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, III Judge Small Causes Court, Chennai.
Prayer in C.M.A.No 1292 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Decree
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.972 & 1292 of 2016
and Judgment dated 08.01.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.2105/2013 on the file
of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants in
C.M.A.No.972 of 2016
and for respondents in
C.M.A.No.1292 of 2016 : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
For Respondent in
C.M.A.No.972 of 2016
and for Appellant in
C.M.A.No.1292 of 2016 : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
COMMON JUDGMENT
C.M.A.No 1292 of 2016 has been filed by the Transport Corporation
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the
respondents/claimants under the impugned award dated 08.01.2016 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( III Small Causes Court, Chennai)
in M.C.O.P.No 2105 of 2013 and C.M.A.No 972 of 2016 has been filed by
the claimants challenging the very same award on the ground that the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it is
not a just compensation.
2/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.972 & 1292 of 2016
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident and arise out
of the same M.C.O.P., both the appeals are disposed of by this common
judgment.
3. Heard Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel for the claimants
and Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the Transport Corporation.
4. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the Transport
Corporation who is the appellant in C.M.A.No.1292 of 2016 to pay the
claimants a compensation of Rs.9,27,500/- together with interest and costs
as detailed hereunder:
Heads Award amount
(Rs.)
Pecuniary loss 6,07,500/-
(7500- ¼ = 5625 x
12 x 9)
Loss of consortium to the 1st 50,000/-
claimant
Loss of Love and affection to 2,50,000/-
the claimants 2 to 6
Funeral expenses 20,000/-
Total 9,27,500/-
5. The claimants are the legal representatives and the dependents of
the deceased Ramadoss who died on 20.01.2013 as a result of an accident
3/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.972 & 1292 of 2016
caused by a bus owned by the Transport Corporation. In the claim petition,
the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was a security guard aged 59
years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of the accident.
The accident happened in the year 2013. The Tribunal has fixed the notional
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- based on the salary certificate
filed by the claimants which was marked as Ex.P17. Hence the said
assessment is a correct assessment and does not call for any interference.
6. The Tribunal has rightly deducted ¼th towards personal expenses of
the deceased and the correct multiplier has also been adopted for the
assessment of the pecuniary loss. However, the Tribunal has awarded a
higher compensation towards loss of love and affection amounting to
Rs.2,50,000/-. This Court is of the view that since the Tribunal has failed to
award any compensation towards loss of future prospects, transportation
and loss of estate, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.9,27,500/- cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the
Transport Corporation. Similarly, the claimants who have filed
C.M.A.No.972 of 2016 are also not entitled for any enhancement, in view of
4/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.972 & 1292 of 2016
the fact that the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a correct
assessment.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in
both the appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The
Transport Corporation who is the Appellant in CMA.No.1292 of 2016 is
directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal together with
interest from the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs, after
deducting the amount already deposited if any to the credit of
MCOP.No.2105 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.2105 of
2013 to the bank account of the claimants who are the Appellants in
CMA.No.972 of 2016 as per the ratio apportioned by the Tribunal through
RTGS within a period of one week thereafter. No costs.
30.04.2021
msv
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking orders/Non-speaking orders
5/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.972 & 1292 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
msv
To
The III Judge Small Causes Court, Chennai
C.M.A.No.972 of 2016
and C.M.A.No.1292 of 2016
30.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
