Madras High Court

Vijakumari Bellie vs A.Lakshmana Swamy on 8 February, 2021

                                                                         C.M.A.No.3733 of 2013

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 08.02.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                               CMA. No.3733 of 2013

                     Vijakumari Bellie                                        ... Appellant

                                                       ..vs..

                     1.A.Lakshmana Swamy,

                     2.S.Ponnan,

                     3.M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                       Sundaram Towers,
                       No.45 & 46, Whites Road,
                       Chennai.

                     4.Manojkumar,

                     5.IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                       Kalpana Road,
                       Udumalpet.                                         ... Respondents

                           Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
                     against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010 made in
                     M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
                     Tribunal, District Judge, Udhagamandalam.



                     1/11



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                              C.M.A.No.3733 of 2013

                                   For Appellants               : Mr.T.Thiyagarajan
                                   For Respondent No.3        : Mr.E.Rajadurai for
                                                                    Mr.N.Vijaya Raghavan
                                   For Respondent No.1, 4 & 5 : Notice unserved
                                   For Respondent No.1            : Notice D/w
                                                           ----
                                                   JUDGMENT

Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated 04.08.2010,

passed by the tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- along

with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the claimant is before this

Court for enhancement of compensation.

2. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant that the owner of the vehicle/2nd respondent was set exparte and

no claim was made as against the owner of the vehicle. In view of the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,

notice to the owner of the vehicle/2nd respondent is dispensed with.

3. It is the case of the claimant/appellant herein that on 21.11.2008

at about 7.45 p.m, the deceased-appellant's son B.Sathyamoorthy was

traveling from coimbatore to Coonoor in his motorcycle bearing no. TN-

41-V-4520, near Kallar Railway Junction on Ooty to Mettupalayam

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3733 of 2013

Road, a Lorry bearing no. TN-43-B-8058 heading towards

Mettupalayam, driven by the 1st Respondent in a rash and negligent

manner at high speed dashed against the deceased and caused grievous

head injury and died on spot. The deceased was immediately taken to the

Mettupalayam Govt. Hospital and the duty doctor has confirmed the

death of the deceased. The claimant/mother of the deceased filed a claim

petitioner before the tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.62,82,000/-

for the death of her son B.Sathitamoorthy.

4. The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence has

awarded a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- as total compensation under various

heads along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition

till realization. The total compensation awarded by the tribunal under

various heads are as follows:

5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/Claimant is that the deceased was an engineer cum trainee

drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and after the training period the

deceased would have received higher salary on completion of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3733 of 2013

training period and the tribunal has not taken into consideration the

prospects of higher salary while awarding compensation. Furthermore,

the tribunal failed to note that, Ex.P4, the dependency certificate reflects

the age of the petitioner as 50 and hence the tribunal ought to have

adopted the multiplier for the age group between 46 to 50 years. The

tribunal without considering the above vital aspects, has awarded a sum

of Rs. 5,28,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'. The learned

counsel further contended that the compensation awarded under other

heads also very less and required enhancement.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd

respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the tribunal only after

considering the documents and evidences placed on either side, has fixed

the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- and calculated the loss

of dependency by adopting correct multiplier by taking the age of the

claimant. Likewise, the compensation awarded under other heads are

also proper and reasonable. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3733 of 2013

tribunal does not require any interference by this Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant

and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/ Insurance

Company and perused the materials available on record.

8. The main contention of the appellant is that the tribunal has not

awarded adequate amount under the head loss of life. It is seen from the

award, the tribunal as per Ex.P5/Salary Certificate, fixed the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- . The salary fixed by the tribunal is

correct and does not require any modification by this Court. Having

regard to the mulitiplier and addition of future prospects and deduction

towards personal and living expenses in respect of bachelor, it is seen

that the tribunal has taken the age of the claimant/mother of the deceased

for adopting the multiplier. Accordingly, by considering the age of

mother, whose age was 50 years at the time of the accident, the tribunal

adopted multiplier 11 and arrived at a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- for the loss

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3733 of 2013

of life for the deceased. While calculating the said compensation, the

tribunal has not added future prospects. Therefore, this Court, by

following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Sarala Verma's Case, inclined to modify the compensation.

9. As per the age of the deceased, who was aged about 22 years at

the time of the accident, the correct multiplier to be adopted is 18.

Likewise, considering the undisputed fact that the deceased was a

bachelor at the time of the accident, 40% of total income to be added

towards future prospects and 50% has to be deducted towards personal

and living expenses. Applying these principles the sum under the head

loss of life awarded by the tribunal is modified as Rs.9,07,200/- (6000 x

½ x 12 x18 + 40%). The compensation awarded by the tribunal under

other head are also very meagre, hence, considering the fact that

appellant/claimant had already lost her husband and due to the accident,

she lost her only son, it would be appropriate to award just and fair

compensation. Accordingly, this Court modifies the compensation under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3733 of 2013

various heads as folllows;

                             Sl.No           Heads             Compensation      Compensation
                                                               awarded by the     modified by
                                                                 tribunal         this Court
                                                                    Rs.               Rs
                                   1   Loss of Life               5,28,000/-     9,07,200

                                   2    Love & Affection           30,000/-      40,000
                                   3   Transportation and           3,000/-      ...
                                       Damage to clothes
                                       & articles
                                   4   Loss of estate               2,000/-      15,000
                                   5    Funeral Expenses            7,000/-      10,000
                                   6   Transport expenses ..                     5000
                                                  Total           5,70,000/-     9,77,200/-

9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed,

by enhancing the total amount of compensation from Rs.5,70,000/- to

Rs.9,77,200/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of deposit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3733 of 2013

10. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire

enhanced compensation amount, as modifed by this Court, along with

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of deposit, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period

of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On

such deposit, the appellant /claimant is permitted to withdraw the

compensation as modified by this Court along interest, after adjusting the