Madras High Court
Sumathi vs Raja on 30 April, 2021
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 1 of 8
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.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 8
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
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.
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 2 nd
respondent.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 8
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
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. 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.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 8
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
10. The Compensation of Rs.9,14,896/- awarded by the Tribunal is
re-quantified as follows:-
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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 12.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 8
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
** 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.
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,
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 8
C.M.A.No.1824 of 2020
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/
Page No 7 of 8
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/
Page No 8 of 8
