Jeeva vs Mohamed Abubucker
2021 Latest Caselaw 23694 Mad

                                                                                    CMA.No.3342 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                   DATED: 02.12.2021
                                                        CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                                   CMA.No.3342 of 2021

                     Jeeva                                                                 ..Appellant

                                                            Vs.

                     1.Mohamed Abubucker

                     2.National Insurance Company Limited,
                       rep. By its Branch Manager,
                       Office at No.252-A, 1st Floor,
                       Bharathiar Road, Karaikal.                                     ..Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2019 made
                     in MCOP.No.237 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
                     (District Judge), Karaikal.
                                           For Petitioner         : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj


                                                    JUDGMENT

Challenge in this appeal is to the award of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Karaikal in and by which, the claimant was favoured with

an award for a sum of Rs.8,97,508/-.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3342 of 2021

2.The claim was made for the death of one Mahalingam, father of

the petitioner, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 06.07.2018. It

was claimed that the said Mahalingam was hit by the motor cycle bearing

Registration No.PY-02-M-1183, when he was walking on the Nagore main

road from Melavanjore to Keezhavanjore. He sustained severe injuries and

was admitted in the General Hospital at Karaikal. It is stated that he died on

13.08.2018 because of the injuries he sustained in the accident.

3.The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the

accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the two

wheeler. It would also contend that the compensation claimed is excessive.

The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, concluded that the

accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the two

wheeler. The liability of the Insurance Company to pay the award amount

was also sustained.

4.On the quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly income of

Rs.13,705/- and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3342 of 2021

and fixed the monthly loss of dependency at Rs.9,137/-. Adopting a

multiplier of 7, the Tribunal worked out the total loss of dependency at

Rs.7,67,508/-. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of

love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards of loss of estate, Rs.15,000/-

towards funeral expenses, and arrived at a total compensation of

Rs.8,97,508/-. Claiming that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

meagre, the appellant seeks enhancement.

5. Heard Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for

the Appellant.

6.Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant would vehemently contend that the adoption of income at

Rs.13,705/- per month for the accident that occurred in 2018 is very low.

He would also point out that no amount has been granted towards pain and

suffering, though the deceased was inpatient between 06.07.2018 and

13.08.2018 for more than a month. I have considered the submissions of

the learned counsel.

7.As regards the fixation of monthly income, the Tribunal has

adopted inflation index and fixed a monthly income at Rs.13,705/- and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3342 of 2021

deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, when it is not shown that there is

any other dependent except the claimant. Therefore, even assuming that the

fixation of monthly income at Rs.13,705/- can be termed as less, the

deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses mitigates the loss that would have

occurred to the claimant because of the low fixation of the monthly income.

As regards absence of award for pain and suffering, the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is on the

higher side. Award of Rs.50,000/- for loss of love and affection would be

just and reasonable and the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded under

the head of loss of love and affection can be treated as an award for pain and

suffering. Hence, I not find any infirmity or illegality in the award of the

Tribunal. This civil miscellaneous appeal therefore, fails and it is

accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

02.12.2021

kkn

Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3342 of 2021

To:-

The District Court, Karaikal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3342 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

KKN

CMA.No.3342 of 2021

02.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis