Madras High Court

Ramachandran vs Govindan on 15 April, 2021

                                                                              C.M.A.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2017


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 15.04.2021

                                                     CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                            C.M.A.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2017

                  1.Ramachandran
                  2.Chinnammal
                  3.Vijayakumari                                           ...Appellants
                                                                     in C.M.A.No.3075 of 2017
                  1.Mahalakshmi
                  2.Nimya
                  3.Nirmala (Minor)
                  4.Nishanth (Minor)
                  5.Chinnammal                                             ...Appellants
                                                                     in C.M.A.No.3076 of 2017

                                                         Vs
                  1.Govindan
                  2.National Insurance Company Limited,
                    No.23, 100 Feet Road,
                    Gayathri Nagar,
                    Pondicheri-3.                                    ... Respondents both C.M.As



                  Prayer in C.M.A.No.3075 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
                  Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree

                  1/12


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                           C.M.A.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2017


                  dated 27.06.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.635 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
                  Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Perambalur.


                  Prayer in C.M.A.No.3076 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
                  Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree
                  dated 27.06.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.658 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
                  Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Perambalur.
                                    In Both C.M.As
                                           For Appellants  : Mr.S.Kamadevan
                                           For R1          : Mrs.R.Sreevidhya
                                           For R2          : Exparte
                                                        JUDGMENT

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against the judgment

and decree dated 27.06.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.635 & 658 of 2015 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge,

Perambalur.

2.The appellants in both the appeals are the claimants in

M.C.O.P.Nos.635 & 658 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Perambalur. The appellants in

C.M.A.No.3075 of 2017 has filed M.C.O.P.No.635 of 2015, claiming a sum of

Rs.30,00,000 as compensation for the death of Vijayakumar-pillion rider, in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2017

accident took place on 27.01.2015. The appellants in C.M.A.No.3076 of 2017

has filed M.C.O.P.No.658 of 2015, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000 as

compensation for the death of Senthil-rider of the motor cycle, in the accident

took place on 27.01.2015.

3.The facts of the case is that, on 27.01.2015, at about 16.00 hours, while

the deceased Senthil was proceedings in the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing

Registration No. TN–46-D-4390 along with Vijayakumar towards Siruvachur,

the Tata Safari bearing Registration No.TN-31-AL-2647 belonging to the 1st

respondent insured with 2nd respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle from the behind. Due to which,

the rider and the pillion rider of the motor cycle thrown out, sustained grievous

injury and died.

4.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by

the driver of the Tata Safari belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd

respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.7,38,000/- to the claimants

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2017

in M.C.O.P.No.635 of 2015 and a sum of Rs.11,87,800/- to the claimants in

M.C.O.P.No.658 of 2015.

5.Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal,

both the appeals have been filed challenging the quantum of compensation.

The Court below fixed the entire liability against the respondents and there is no

dispute on the aspect of liability.

6.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court below

fixed the notional income of the deceased in both the appeals as Rs.6,000/-p.m.

The accident was occurred on 27.01.2015. Therefore, he fairly submitted that

the Court below ought to have fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- as notional income.

Even for the accident took place in the year 2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance

reported in 2014 1 TNMAC 459 (SC) awarded a sum of Rs.6,500/- for the

vegetable vendor Therefore, considering the cost of living a sum of Rs.15,000/-

would be fair amount to fix as a notional income for the deceased in both the

cases.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2017

7.Further, he fairly submitted that the compensation awarded under other

heads shall be refixed as per the principle laid down in the case of National

Ins. Co. vs. Pranay Sethi & others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC).

8.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that as per the

principle laid down in the Syed Sadiq case stated supra, fixing a sum of

Rs.15,000/- as notional income would be on the higher side and therefore, he

submitted that lesser amount may be fixed as notional income of the deceased in

both the cases.

9.In C.M.A.No.3075 of 2017, the deceased was aged about 24 years, and

he was bachelor. In C.M.A.No.3076 of 2017, the deceased was aged about 43

years at the time of accident. He left his Wife, two children and parents. In

Syed Sadiq case stated supra, the notional income was taken as Rs.6,500/-

considering the year of accident and the cost of living. By applying the same

yardstick, in the present case, the accident is of the year 2015, this Court is

inclined to refix the notional income as a sum of Rs.12,000/-, which would be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2017

fair for both the appeals. Therefore, loss of income arrived as follows:

C.M.A.No.3075 of 2017

10.In C.M.A.3075 of 2017, the age of the deceased was 24 years. The

Court below has correctly applied the multiplier 18. The deceased was bachelor,

therefore the Tribunal deducted half of the income towards personal expense

and added 40% towards future prospect, which is just and proper. Hence, the

loss of earning awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:

Rs.12,000/- + 4,800 (40% of Rs.12,000) x 12 x 18 x 1/2 = Rs.18,14,400/-

11.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the head of loss

of love and affection and the same is re-fixed as Rs.40,000/- each to appellants

1 to 3. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and

the same is very meagre. Therefore, this Court re-fix at a sum of Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate. A sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards

funeral expense and transportation stands confirmed. Thus, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:







https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                     C.M.A.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2017




                          S.No        Description      Amount awarded by     Amount awarded by this
                                                           Tribunal                  Court
                                                             (Rs)                     (Rs)
                         1.        Loss of Income                 6,48,000                    18,14,400
                         2.        Loss of love and                 60,000                     1,20,000
                                   affection for
                                   appellants 1 to 3
                         3.        Funeral Expenses                 25,000                        25,000
                                   & Transportation
                         3.        Loss of Estate                    5,000                        15,000
                                   Total                          7,38,000                    19,74,400
                              C.M.A.No.3076 of 2017

12.In the present case, the deceased was aged about 43 years. Therefore,

25% future prospect required to be added. The Tribunal has added 30% towards

future prospect. Hence, the same is re-fixed as 25%. With regard to the

multiplier and personal expense, the Tribunal applied the correct multiplier 14

and deducted 1/4th share towards personal expense. Hence, the loss of income

awarded by the Tribunal is re-determined as follows:

Rs.12,000/- + 3,000 (25% of Rs.12,000) x 12 x 18 x 3/4 = Rs.18,90,00/-

13.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of

consortium, which is on the higher side and the same is reduced as Rs.40,000/-.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2017

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love

and affection and the same is re-fixed as Rs.40,000/- each to appellants 2 to

5.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and the

same is very meagre. Therefore, this Court re-fix a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards

loss of estate. A sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral

expense and transportation stands confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is modified as follows:

S.No Description Amount awarded by Amount awarded by this Tribunal Court (Rs) (Rs)

1. Loss of Income 9,82,800 18,90,000

2. Loss of love and 1,00,000 1,60,000 affection for appellants 2 to 5

3. Loss of Consortium 75,000 40,000

4. Funeral Expenses 25,000 25,000 & Transportation

5. Loss of Estate 5,000 15,000 Total 11,87,800 21,30,000

14.In the result, this C.M.A.No.3075 of 2017 is partly allowed and the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.635 of 2015 at

Rs.7,38,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.19,74,400/- with interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.3075 & 3076 of 2017

appellants/claimants shall pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced

compensation. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

enhanced award amount along with interest and costs now determined by this

Court, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of ten weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the

appellants 1 and 2 is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, each and the

3rd appellant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.4,74,400/- of the award

amount, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already

withdrawn. The Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective share of the

appellants/claimants by way of RTGS, within a period of three weeks from the

deposit or from the date of receipt of the Bank details obtained for the claimant

or application made by the appellants/claimants for withdrawal, whichever is

later.