Madras High Court
At Request Of The Learned Counsel ... vs Raja on 30 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
C. SARAVANAN, J.
At request of the learned counsel for the appellants, this case was listed
under the caption for “clarification”.
2. On verification of the order dated 30.04.2021, no further
clarification is required.
06.07.2021
Jen
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No. 1 of 10
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
06.07.2021
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No. 2 of 10
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
1.Sumathi,
W/o.Late Settu
2.Purushothaman
S/o.Late Settu
3.Meenakshi,
D/o.Late Settu ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Raja,
S/o.Chellappan
2.The Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
No.106, 1st Floor,
Big Street, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.12.2019 made
in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.8 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
For Respondents :
For R1 : Exparte
For R2 : Mr.J.Chandran
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No. 3 of 10
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants, wife, son and the daughter
of the deceased-Settu who was purportedly engaged in running a saloon shop
and was musician.
2. In the claim petition, the appellants/claimants have stated that the
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. However, they were
unable to substantiate the same before the Tribunal. Under these
circumstances, the Tribunal has considered a notional income of Rs.6,500/-
per month to award a compensation of Rs.9,14,896/-. It was perhaps due to
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq Vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735. There the Hon'ble Supreme Court
concluded that it would be fair to conclude a notional income of Rs.6,500/-
for an accident of the year 2008. The aforesaid income was considered as the
notional income of a vegetable vendor.
3. In this case, the appellants/claimants have prayed for enhancement
of compensation stating that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
4. Defending the impugned Judgment and decree, the learned counsel
for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submits that in absence of any
direct evidences, the Tribunal is justified in considering the notional income
of Rs.6,500/- per month for awarding compensation. He further submits that
the deceased was aged about 52 years as per the Post Mortem Report and
therefore the Tribunal ought to have adopted a correct multiplier.
5. It is submitted that since the Tribunal has considered wrong
multiplier, the over all compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the notional
income of Rs.6,500/- per month may be confirmed and therefore prays for
dismissal of the present appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the 2nd respondent.
7. The Tribunal has considered a very low income of Rs.6,500/- per
month while awarding the aforesaid compensation considering the fact that
the accident is of the year 2018. The value of money has substantially
devalued since 2008 when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq Vs.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735 rendered its decision.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to consider the notional monthly income of
the deceased as Rs.12,500/- per month as the deceased was a skilled worker
i.e., a hair stylist running his own saloon.
8. On the aforesaid amount, there shall be a further addition of 25%
towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
9. In the result, the income of the deceased including 25% towards
future prospects is to be considered as Rs.12,500/- + Rs.3,125/- =
Rs.15,625/-. Considering the fact that the deceased supporting his family
consisting of his wife and two children, there will be a deduction of 1/3rd
towards personal expenses of the deceased.
10. The Compensation of Rs.9,14,896/- awarded by the Tribunal is re-
quantified as follows:-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
Heads and Calculation Amount
Loss of earning capacity:-
Monthly Income : Rs.12,500/-
Add: *Future Prospects at 25%
(12,500 x 25/100) : Rs. 3,125/-
----------------
: Rs.15,625/-
Less: Personal Expenses 1/3rd
(15,625 x 1/3) : Rs. 5,208/-
----------------
Monthly Contribution to the Family : Rs. 10,417/-
Annual Contribution to the family
(10,417x 12) : Rs.1,25,004/-
*Multiplier 13 (1,25,004 x 13) : Rs.16,25,052/- Rs.16,25,052/-
Loss of Consortium to the 1st appellant Rs. 40,000/-
** Loss of Parental Consortium to the 2nd & 3rd Rs. 80,000/-
appellants (Rs.40,000/- each)
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.17,75,052/-
rounded off to
Rs.17,76,000/-
* Proper Multiplier of 13 is fixed by this Court as per the decision of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 12.
** Parental Consortium is granted by this court as per the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma Insurance Company Limited Vs
Nanuram @ Chuhruram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130.
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.
On such deposit of deficit court fee, the Registry shall draft the decree of
this Judgment.
12. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is however directed to
deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.17,76,000/- 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.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
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. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed with the
above observations. No costs.
30.04.2021
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,
Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madras High Court.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
30.04.2021
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
