Madras High Court
Mohammed Ismail vs S.Christopher on 22 December, 2021
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
1.Mohammed Ismail
2.Khateeja .. Appellants
Vs.
1.S.Christopher
2.United India Insurance Company Ltd,
Siligi Building New No.134, Old No.40-45,
Greams Road, Chennai-6. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2017 made
in M.C.O.P.No.7255 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mrs.Ramya V.Rao
For R2 : Mr.A.Dhiraviyanathan
For R1 : Vacated
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 05.04.2017
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Small Causes
Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.7255 of 2014, seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
2. The appellants herein are the claimants, who are the father and
mother of the deceased, namely Abuthakkeer, who died in a road accident
claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-, the appellants herein moved claim
petition before the Tribunal.
3. Resisting the claim of the appellants, the second
respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit inter alia disputing
the manner of the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased.
4. In order to prove their respective claims on behalf of the appellants,
P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 was marked, while on behalf
of the second respondent none were examined and no documents was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
marked.
5. On consideration of the both oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal has categorically found that the accident was caused by the driver of
the Tata Ace Van belonging to the 1 st respondent and insured with the second
respondent/Insurance Company. As regard the income of the deceased, though
the appellants produced Ex.P6 series of cash payment vouchers since it was
not proved that in what rank the deceased was working and the person who
issued Ex.P6-cash payment vouchers was not examined. In such
circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per
month as against the claim of the appellants that the deceased was earning a
sum of Rs.24,500/- per month. Taking note of the age of the deceased, the
Tribunal adopted multiplier method by relying upon the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kanhsingh and another Vs. Tukaram
and others, 2015(1) TNMAC 1 (SC) and in Asjhvinbhai Jayantilal Modi
Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another, 2015(1) TNMAC 52
(SC), and adding 50% of future prospects and other aspects, the Tribunal
awarded the total amount of Rs.10,16,000/- as compensation payable by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
second respondent/Insurance Company.
6. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal
has not considered the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the
appellants to prove that the deceased was working as Automobile Engineer
and was earning a sum of Rs.24,500/- per month and to prove the same,
Ex.P6 series also were marked. However, the Tribunal has fixed very low
income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. He would further contend that the
Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier method of '13' instead of '18' as
per Sarla Verma's case since at the time of accident the deceased was aged 21
years. He also pointed out that no compensation was awarded towards future
prospects. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants would pray for
enhancement of the compensation.
8. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
would contend that the Tribunal has rightly passed the award on
consideration of the evidence available on record and no interference is
required and hence he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company and
perused the materials available on record.
10. It is not in dispute that the deceased who is the son of the appellants
herein had died in a road accident and he was aged at 21 years at the time of
accident. This Court perused Ex.P6-cash payment vouchers wherein it has
been mentioned that the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs.24,500/- per
month as salary by working as Automobile Engineer. But, the Tribunal has
considered the fact to prove Ex.P6 none were examined and hence it has
notionally fixed at Rs.8,000/-. On perusal of Ex.P6 series as well as the
evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants, this Court is of the view that the
income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is very meagre and is hereby
fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month. Even as regards the multiplier adopted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellants has rightly pointed out that as
per the Sarla Verma's case, the multiplier '18' has to be adopted since the
deceased was 21 years at the time of accident. Admittedly, the deceased was a
bachelor died in the accident as such 40% of future prospects has to be added.
Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is modified
to Rs.22,68,000/- [(Rs.15,000/- + 6,000) (40% of Rs.15,000/-) x 12 x 18 x
1/2)]. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate.
Hence, sum of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards loss of estate. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and
affection and transportation respectively and the same are meagre. A sum of
Rs.80,000/- is granted towards loss of love and affection. A sum of
Rs.15,000/- granted towards transportation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same is hereby reduced to
Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
S.No Description Amount Amount Award
awarded by awarded by this confirmed or
Tribunal Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of 9,36,000/- 22,68,000/- Enhanced
income
2. Loss of love 50,000 80,000 Enhanced
and affection
3. Transportation 5000 15,000 Enhanced
4. Funeral 15,000 Reduced
expenses 25000
5. Loss of estate - 15000 Granted
Total Rs.10,16,000/- Rs.23,93,000/- Enhanced by
Rs.13,77,000/-
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.10,16,000/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.23,93,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellants are
directed to pay the Court fee, if any on the enhanced amount of compensation.
The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced award amount now determined by this Court along with interest
and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit,
the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the
enhanced award amount as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the
Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any,
already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. No
costs.
22.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
gbi
To
1.The Chief Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
S.KANNAMMAL, J.,
gbi
C.M.A.No.2366 of 2017
22.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
