Madras High Court
Smt.Ramalakshmma vs G.Duraisamy on 22 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2085 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.2085 of 2017
1.Smt.Ramalakshmma
2.Selvi.Padmavathy ...Appellants
Vs
1.G.Duraisamy
2.E.A.Murugesan
3.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,
Sundaram Towers-45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai-14.
4.V.Sirisha ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2009 dated
11.07.2011 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Sivaji (No appearance)
For Respondents : Not ready in notice for R1, R2 & R4
No appearance for R3
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2085 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants for
enhancement of compensation.
2. The facts of the case is that on 22.06.2008, when the deceased
Srinivasalu was walking along the Bhavani to Erode Road near Tamil Nadu Cloth
Processing Mill, a lorry bearing registration No.TN 28 J 4322 dashed against the
cyclist and capsized. The deceased who was walking caught under the capsized
lorry and died. At the time of death, he was 52 years old earning Rs.12,000/- per
month as Managing Partner M/s. Naga Arjuna Enterprises. The first claimant is
the wife of the deceased. The second and third claimants are his son and daughter
of the deceased. Pending claim petition, the son died leaving behind his wife and
the mother as his legal heirs. Since the second claimant's wife did not join as the
claimants, she was arrayed as fourth respondent in the claim petition. A sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- was sought as compensation for the death of Srinivasalu.
3. The third respondent/Insurance Company resisted the claim on the
ground that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and the claim
of compensation is on higher side.
4. Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined and eight
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2085 of 2017
exhibits were marked. The Tribunal on considering the First Information Report-
Ex.P1, Sketch-Ex.P2, Motor Vehicle Inspector's report-Ex.P3 and the final report
of the police-Ex.P4 held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
lorry driver and therefore, as an insurer of the said lorry, the third respondent
namely Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited is liable to pay
compensation.
5. Regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal disbelieved the
salary certificate-Ex.P8 produced by PW.2, since the PW.2 had no authorisation
letter from the M/s Naga Arjuna Enterprises, where the deceased alleged to have
been employed as Manager. Therefore, the Tribunal fixing the income of the
deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses,
applied multiplier method and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.
6. Not being satisfied with the said quantum of compensation, appeal
is filed on the ground that the Tribunal ought not to have rejected Ex.P8-salary
certificate and the evidence of PW.2, who has spoken about the employment and
income capacity of the deceased. It was also contended that the Tribunal failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2085 of 2017
take note of the future prospects of the deceased person. Hence, fair and just
compensation should be given to the claimants for the untimely death of the
deceased Srinivasalu.
7. Though the appeal was listed for final hearing on several
occasions, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants and the
respondents. However, taking note of the fact that the compensation awarded to
the claimants being unfair and less, this Court after going through the records
enhanced the compensation as below:-
Notional income of the deceased fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month with
10% future prospects. Since his age at the time of death was 52 years, multiplier
factor 11 applied. There were three dependants on him, so 1/3 rd of his notional
income is deducted towards personal expenses. The total loss of income is
computed as (Rs.3000+300) x 2/3 x 11 x 12 = Rs: 2,90,400/-. Besides in addition,
Rs.15,000/- for Funeral Expenses; Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to the first
claimant and Rs.15,000/- for the loss of love and affection to the 3 rd claimant
granted. Totally the compensation is enhanced to Rs.3,60,400/- from Rs.1,00,000/.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2085 of 2017
The fourth respondent herein who is the widow of the deceased second claimant is
not entitled for any compensation for the death of her father-in-law, since she
never been a dependant on him.
8. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.3,60,400/- shall be
apportioned to the appellants 1 and 2/1st and 3rd claimants equally. The 3rd
respondent/Insurance Company herein is directed to deposit the award amount as
enhanced with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants 1 & 3/appellants are
permitted to withdraw the same on appropriate petition.
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
22.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rpl
To
The II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2085 of 2017
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
rpl
C.M.A.No.2085 of 2017
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
