Madras High Court
R.Suguna vs A.Mary Rani on 10 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
1.R.Suguna
2.R.Deepa
3.R.Purushothaman (Minor)
Rep.by mother & Next friend
R.Suguna
4.V.Thulasi Ammal ... Appellants
..Vs..
1.A.Mary Rani
2.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
United India Building,
Esplande, Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the common judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.2686 of
2004 dated 29.04.2008 on the file of the II Judge, Small Causes Court,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
For Appellants : Mr.K.A.Ravindran
For Respondents : R1- Notice unserved
Mr.A.Arunkumar for R2
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed against the
judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.2686 of 2004 dated 29.04.2008 on
the file of the II Judge, Small Causes Court, (Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal), Chennai.
2. The appellants are the wife, daughter, son and mother of
the deceased Ravi. It is the case of the claimants that on 25.01.2004 at
about 3.30 p.m., the deceased Ravi along with others were travelling as
passengers in a Van bearing Reg.No.TN-07-M-3472, which was insured
with the second respondent/Insurance Company, on Trichy-Chennai
Road. The driver drove the Van in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed on the back side of the Standing Bus bearing Reg.No.TN-32-N-
1365. Due to the accident, deceased Ravi sustained fatal injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
3. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased
worked as Manifold Technician in Ramachandra Hospital and also as
part time Technician in Cauvery Hospital and earned Rs.7,500/- per
month. Hence, they made a claim for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as
compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance
Company submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of
the Van. The accident occurred only due to the driver of the Bus
belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Corporation, who had stopped the Bus
suddenly without giving any signal. Hence, the Van slightly hit on the
backside of the bus. Since the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Corporation
Bus alone was responsible for the accident, the claimants are entitled to
claim compensation only against them. Hence, the Insurance Company is
not liable to pay compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
5. In order to prove the claim on the side of the claimants,
the wife of the deceased examined herself as PW5 and the Doctors, who
examined the deceased as well as the other injured persons, were
examined as PW9 to PW12 and 50 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to
P50. Court Summon was marked as Ex.C1. On the side of the Insurance
Company neither any oral evidence was adduced nor documents were
marked.
6. The Tribunal after analysing the entire evidence came to
the conclusion that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent
act of the driver of the first respondent's Van and and directed the second
respondent/Insurance Company to pay compensation amount of
Rs.6,54,940/-. The break-up details of the amount awarded by the
Tribunal under various heads are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
Heads Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
Loss of Dependency Rs.3,333 x 12 x 15 =
5,99,940/-
Funeral Expenses 5,000/-
Loss of Consortium 20,000/-
Love and affection 30,000/-
Total Rs. 6,54,940/-
Challenging the above, the present appeal has been preferred
by the appellants before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
the Tribunal had taken only a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- as monthly
income without considering Exs.P21 and P202 the salary certificates of
the deceased. However, actually deceased earned a sum of Rs.5,150 by
working as Manifold Technician in Ramachandra Hospital and also
earned a sum of Rs.2,000/- by working as a part time Technician in
Cauvery Hospital. Thus, the deceased earned a sum of Rs.7,150/- per
month. Further, the Tribunal also awarded meagre amounts under other
heads and hence he seeks to enhance the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/
Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal rightly appreciating
the entire evidence has fixed the compensation, which is just and fair.
Further, as the age of the deceased being 42, the correct multiplier to be
adopted by the Tribunal as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 is "14", but the Tribunal wrongly
taken 15, which needs to be rectified.
9. This Court considered the rival submissions made on both
sides and perused the materials available on record.
10. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed a sum of Rs.5,000/- as
monthly income of the deceased without proper appreciation of the
evidence. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the deceased Ravi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
worked as a Manifold Technician Level-I in Ramachandra Hospital and
earned a sum of Rs.5,150/- per month and also as a Part Time Technician
in Cauvery Trust Hospital and earned a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month and
to prove the same the claimants produced salary certificates, which were
marked as Exs.P21 and P22. Thus, the deceased earned a sum of
Rs.7,150/- by working in those two hospitals. Therefore, this Court fixes
a sum of Rs.5,500/- as monthly income, after deducting the variables.
11. Thus, if a sum of Rs.5,500/- is taken as monthly income
and 25% of the same is added towards future prospects, the amount
works out to Rs.6,875/- [5,500 + 1,375]. If 1/4th of the amount is
deducted towards personal expenses, the amount works out to Rs.5,157/-
[6,875 - 1,718]. Resultantly, the annual income comes to Rs.61,884/-
[5,157 x 12]. Considering the age of the deceased being 42, the correct
multiplier to be applied as per Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 is
"14". Hence, if multiplier "14" is applied, the "Loss of Dependency"
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
comes Rs.8,66,376/-.
12. The sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under
the head "Funeral Expenses" appears to be on the lower and hence the
same is set aside, instead a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head
"Funeral and Transportation Expenses".
13. Further, the total sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal under the head "Loss of Love and Affection" to the claimants is
set aside, instead a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the claimants
under the head "Filial Consortium" by awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- to
each of the claimants.
14. The total compensation is enhanced as mentioned below:
Heads Amount Enhanced
awarded by compensation
the Tribunal
Loss of Dependency Rs.3,333 x 12 Rs.5,500 x 25/100
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
Heads Amount Enhanced
awarded by compensation
the Tribunal
x 15 = x 12 x 14-1/4 =
5,99,940/- 8,66,376/-
Funeral Expenses 5,000/- ...
Funeral & Transport ... 20,000/-
Expenses
Loss of Consortium 20,000/- 1,00,000/-
Love and affection 30,000/- ...
Total Rs. 6,54,940/- Rs.9,86,376/-
15. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.6,54,940/- to Rs.9,86,376/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and three hundred and seventy
six only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition
till the date of payment. The second respondent/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the award amount as determined above, less the
amount if any already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made,
the appellants 1, 2, & 4/ major claimants are permitted to withdraw their
respective shares in the award amount, less the amount(s) if any already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
withdrawn by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The share
of the minor claimant shall be deposited in any Nationalised Banks in any
Fixed Deposit Scheme and renewed periodically until he attains majority.
The first appellant is permitted to withdraw the interest accruing thereon
once in three months. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay
necessary court fee, on the enhanced compensation amount. The
apportionment of shares as fixed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. No
costs.
10.02.2021
(2/2)
Internet : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dna
To
1.The II Judge, Small Causes Court,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
2.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
United India Building,
Esplande, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
dna
C.M.A.No.681 of 2009
(2/2)
10.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
