Madras High Court
Venkatesh vs Sundararaju on 5 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.1203 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.No.1203 of 2020
1.Venkatesh
2.Vijayalakshmi
3. Ramya .. Appellants
Vs.
1.Sundararaju
2. The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
KVA Complex, 90-A, Thuraiyur Road,
Namakkal-637 001. ..
Respondents
Hub: Divisional Office, Parimalam Complex,
No.11, EVN Road, 2nd Floor,
Erode-638 011.
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
08.09.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.210 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Erode.
For Appellants : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
For R2 : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraaghavan
R1 : Exparte
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1203 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the award dated 08.09.2021 made in
M.C.O.P.No.6759 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, First Additional District Judge, Erode.
2.The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.210 of 2016 on the
file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Judge,
Erode. They filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Manikandan, who died
in the accident that took place on 03.12.2015.
3.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 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company to pay a sum of Rs.11,95,500/- as compensation to the Appellants.
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1203 of 2020
compensation.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants contended that the
deceased (Manikandan) was working as a printer operator in Dharani Printing
Garnments and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. To prove the
same, the appellants examined one Karthick as P.W.3 to show that the
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as gross income. The
Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of P.W.3, and fixed a meagre sum of
Rs.6,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The Tribunal ought
to have fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and
awarded compensation. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards other
heads are also very meagre and therefore prayed for enhancement of
compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants has referred
to the Judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in C.M.A.(MD) No.189
of 2012 dated 22.04.2016, in which this Court has relied upon yet another
Judgment of this Court in the case of Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company reported in 2016 (1) TN MAC 453 (DB),
wherein it is held that the married daughter/sister/brother are legal
representatives, entitled to compensation.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1203 of 2020
6.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal considering the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. Deputy
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014 (1) TNMAC 459
fixed the notional income at Rs.6,500/- per month. The total compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is not meagre. The appellants have not made out any
case for enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials on record.
8.It is the case of the appellants that at the time of accident the
deceased was aged 20 years, working as printer operator in Dharani Printing
Garnments and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. To prove the
same, the appellants examined one Karthick as P.W.3, who is the co-worker
of the deceased to prove that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-
per month as gross income. But, no documents have been filed to that effect.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1203 of 2020
The Tribunal on considering the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. Deputy Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014 (1) TNMAC 459 fixed the notional income at
Rs.6,500/- per month. The cost of living has increased enormously and salary
of even unskilled workers has increased substantially, a sum of Rs.11,200/-
per month is fixed as notional income of the deceased. The Tribunal granted
50% enhancement towards future prospects of the deceased, which is reduced
to 40% and by adopting multiplier '18' as per Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 997
and by deducting 1/2rd towards personal expenses of the deceased the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is modified to
Rs.12,09,600/- {Rs.8500+3200=11200(40% future prospects) i.e,
11,200x12x18-1/2}. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads
are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. The
Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the Appellants may not be
applicable for the present case on hand. However, when married
daugher/sister/brother are considered to be legal representatives, the third
appellant who was 17 years at the time of accident and fully dependent on the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1203 of 2020
deceased can be termed as legal representative of the deceased brother.
9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of Income 10,53,000/- 12,09,600/- Enhanced
2. Loss of Love and 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Confirmed
Affection
3. Funeral Expenses 25,000/- 25,000/- Confirmed
4. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
5. Loss of estate 7,500/- 7,500/- Confirmed
Total Rs.11,95,500/- Rs.13,52,100/- Enhanced by
Rs.1,56,600/-
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.11,95,500/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.13,52,100/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The
Appellants/Claimants are entitled for the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal.
The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award
amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the
amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.210 of 2016
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1203 of 2020
Judge, Erode. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to
transfer the Award amount, as per the shares apportioned by the Tribunal,
directly to the Bank account of the Appellants/Claimants through RTGS,
within a period of two weeks. The appellant/claimant shall pay necessary
Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. However, it is made clear
that if there is any delay in filing the C.M.A. and in case of any earlier order
by this Court, depriving interest for the period of delay in question, the
interest portion for that period should be excluded for the purpose of granting
interest. No costs.
24.08.2021
arr
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The I Additional District Judge,
Erode.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1203 of 2020
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
arr
C.M.A.No.1203 of 2020
05.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
