Rani vs Daniel
2021 Latest Caselaw 23756 Mad

                                                                                 CMA.No.1382 of 2020

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                 DATED: 03.12.2021
                                                       CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                                 CMA.No.1382 of 2020

                     Rani                                                               ...Appellant

                                                          Vs.

                     1.Daniel

                     2.The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                       II-Floor, Balaji Towers, D.O-II, 11/289,
                       Ramakrishna Road,
                       Salem District – 636 007.                                   ..Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                     Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.44 of 2019
                     dated 17.03.2020, on the file of teh Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
                     Principal District Judge Court, Salem.


                                         For Appellant        : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
                                         For Respondents      : Mr.D.Bhaskaran for R2




                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                CMA.No.1382 of 2020




                                                  JUDGMENT

The claimant, not satisfied with the award of a sum of

Rs.3,46,800/- for the death of one Sulochana, mother of the claimant in the

motor accident that occurred on 09.10.2017 is on appeal, seeking

enhancement.

2.According to the claimant, when the said Sulochana was

walking along with the left extreme of the road near Old Bus Stand, Salem,

the private bus bearing Registration No.TN-30-AE-2227 owned by the 1st

respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from

behind and dashed against the deceased. As a result of the accident, the

deceased suffered grevious injuries in the legs and head. She was taken to

the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, where

she was declared as brought dead. Contending that the deceased was

working in a silver anklet making unit and also as a maid servant was

earning about Rs.7,000/- per month and she was also supporting the

claimant financially. Hence, she is entitled to compensation. The owner of

the bus remained exparte.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1382 of 2020

3.The Insurance Company filed a counter contending that the

accident did not happen in the manner suggested by the claimant. It was the

contention that the deceased suddenly crossed the road leading to the

accident. The bus was being driven in a careful manner at a slow speed as

the area itself is crowded. The quantum of compensation that was claimed

was also termed as excessive. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined

herself as PW1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3.

One Prabhakaran has examined as RW1. One Daniel, owner of the bus was

examined as RW2. One Nagarajan was examined as RW3. One Annamalai

has examined as RW4. While Exs.P1 to P11 were marked on the side of the

claimant, Exs.R1 to R3 were marked on the side of the respondent.

4.On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal came

to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the bus and the Insurance Company, as the insurer of the bus, is

liable to pay compensation. On quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-, adopting 10% towards future

prospects, arrived at the annual income at Rs.52,800/- The Tribunal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1382 of 2020

deducted 1/3 for the personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 9, since

the deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of the accident. On the

above calculation, the Tribunal arrived at the total loss of dependency at

Rs.3,16,800/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of

love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/-

towards transport expenses. Thus, the total award worked out to

Rs.3,46,800/-.

5.I have heard Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran, learned counsel

appearing for the Appellant and Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing

for the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company.

6.Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal must have taken a

monthly income at Rs.7,000/- and not at Rs.4,000/-. He would also plead

that it is common knowledge that women who worked in silver anklet units

are paid decent daily wages. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend

that the fixation of Rs.4,000/- as monthly income is too low.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1382 of 2020

7.Contending contra, Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing

for the Insurance Company would submit that the claimant being a married

daughter will not answer the description of a dependent. The Insurance

Company did not project the said defence also because of the fact that the

deceased was the mother of the claimant. On the question of income,

Mr.D.Bhaskaran would submit that the Tribunal was justified in taking the

monthly income at Rs.4,000/- adding 10% towards future prospects.

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Compay Vs. Pranay Sethi, the Tribunal had arrived at the total

loss of dependency at Rs.3,16,800/-. According to Mr.D.Bhaskaran, the

said amount is very reasonable and it does not require any enhancement,

considering the status of the claimant also. I have considered the rival

submissions.

8.There is no evidence for the income earned by the deceased.

She was aged about 60 years. No doubt, women in Salem working in Silver

anklet making units will earn about Rs.10,000/- per month, but that by itself

will not form basis for the Tribunal to grant compensation or to fix income at

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1382 of 2020

a particular rate. There has to be some evidence available on record to show

that the deceased was earning a particular amount as income. In the

absence of such evidence, the Tribunal will have to go only by notional

income. The accident in this case took place in the year 2017. The deceased

was aged about 60 years. Threfore, the Tribunal was justified in taking

Rs.4,000/- as a notional income. If the fixation of notional income at

Rs.4,000/- is sustained, there cannot be any other greivance because the

Tribunal has applied the proper multiplier and also a proper percentage for

future prospects. The compensation granted on the other heads also cannot

be said to be on the lower side. I find, the overall compensation assessed is

reasonable and I do not see any reason to interfere with the award of the

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

accordingly dismissed. No costs.

03.12.2021

kkn

Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1382 of 2020

To:-

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-ordinate Court, Tiruchengode.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1382 of 2020

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

KKN

CMA.No.1382 of 2020

03.12.2021

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