Madras High Court
A.Mathumathi vs K.Annamalai on 22 February, 2021
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
1.A.Mathumathi
2.Minor A.Dhurveshraj,
Rep. by his mother & natural guardian 1st petitioner
3.G.Yamunadevi : Appellants / Petitioners
Vs.
1.K.Annamalai
2.The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
II – Floor, S.V.Complex,
No.179, Eswaran Koil Street,
Pondicherry – 605 001.
: Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated
04.02.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.1685 of 2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal(V Additional District Judge), Madurai.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For R-1 : No Appearance
For R-2 : Mr.K.Bhaskaran
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/10
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
Being aggrieved by the award and decree dated 04.02.2013
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Additional District
Judge), Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.1685 of 2010 in respect of the quantum
of compensation awarded to the claimants for the death of one
Arikrishnaraja in a road traffic accident occurred on 04.12.2009, the
appellants/claimants, have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. Brief facts are that on 04.12.2009 at about 9.00 p.m., when the
deceased Arikrishnaraja was travelling along with his driver in a
Maruthi 800 car, bearing Registration No.TN-22-AS-5556 from Chennai
Pallavaram to Madurai, near Vanchinagaram four way track, a lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-37-B-9597 owned by the first respondent and
insured with the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the car and ran over the front portion of the car and
caused the accident. In the said accident, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries
sustained. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 33 years and
was the proprietor of Mechanic on Wheels, Pallavaram, Chennai and a
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/10
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
Director of Alvis Agro Foods(P) Ltd., Pallavaram, Chennai. Regarding the
accident, a Criminal Case was registered against the driver of the lorry
and subsequently, charge sheet was also laid as against the driver of the
lorry. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of
the lorry, the Claimants, who are the wife, children and mother, have
filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
3. Resisting the Claim Petition, the Insurance Company has filed
counter contending that the accident occurred only due to the reckless
act of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed by
Claimants is highly excessive and without any basis.
4. Before the Tribunal, wife of the deceased – Madhumathi was
examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining Eye-witness Rajkumar as
P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the
side of the Insurance Company, two witnesses were examined as
R.W.1 and R.W.2, Ex.R1-Advocate notice sent to R.W.1 and
Ex.R.2-Expert opinion given by R.W.2 about the Income Tax Statement,
were also marked.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/10
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
5. Upon consideration of evidence of P.W.2 eye-witness and
referring to Ex.P.1 - FIR registered against the driver of the lorry, the
Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the lorry and the deceased subsequently died of the
injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal further held that the
second respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to
the Claimants. Accordingly, the Tribunal had awarded a total
compensation of Rs.8,93,272/- under various heads.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
placed reliance on the decision of a Division of this Court in
Andal and two others v. Avinav Kannan and another reported in
2019(1) TN MAC 54(DB), for the determination of notional income of a
person, who died in a road accident, wherein as there was no evidence
for the monthly income of the deceased, as per the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance
Company Ltd., reported in 2014(1) TN MAC 459, a sum of Rs.6,500/-
per month was fixed and it was to be increased corresponding to the cost
of living, prices of the essentials and inflation and the Division Bench had
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/10
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
considered the said aspect and evaluated the notional income for
determining the notional income, which reads as follows:
“12. Therefore, it is just and necessary to increase the
Notional Income of Rs.6,500/- fixed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court during the year 2008 corresponding to the cost of
living, prices of the essentials and inflation. Hence to
determine the Notional Income of the deceased who was
working as a Daily Wager in “The Ark Chicken Mutton Corner”
in the year 2014. We decided to apply the Cost of Inflation
Index as issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) for
the purpose of determination of Notional Income of the
deceased person.
13. The CBDT vide Notification No.370142(E)(No.26 of
2008(F.No.37042/3/2008-TPL), dated 13.06.2008 specifies
the Cost of Inflation Index as mentioned in Column No.3 for
the financial year mentioned in the corresponding entry in
Column No.2 in the below said Tabular Column:
S.No Financial Year Cost Inflation Index
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/10
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
14. As per the above said index, the Cost of Inflation Index for
the year as 2007-2008 is 129 and for the year 2013-2014 will be
220. Now we determine the Notional Income of the deceased in the
manner stated below:
The Notional Income fixed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India X Cost of Inflation Index for the
for the vegetable vendor i.e., year 2013-2014
Rs.6,500 during the year 2007-2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Inflation Index for the year 2007-2008
Therefore, Income for the deceased is Rs.6,500 X 220
------------------ = Rs.11,085
The Notional Income of the deceased after applying Inflation
Index, will be a sum of Rs.11,085. Hence, we re-fix the
Notional Income of the deceased as Rs.11,000 from Rs.6,500.
Therefore, we hold that the Tribunal committed error in fixing
the Notional Income of the deceased as stated above.
8. In the instant case, as per the above calculation, taking the
notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month and after
considering the Cost of Inflation Index, the monthly income, would be
calculated as follows:
6,500 X 148
--------------- = Rs.7,457/-
9. By adding the future prospectus at 40% considering the age of
the deceased, i.e., Rs.2,982/- monthly income would be
Rs.7,457/- + Rs.2,982/- = Rs.10,439/-. From the above sum, 1/3rd
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 6/10
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses,
the loss of income would be Rs.6,960/-(Rs.10,439 - Rs.3,479/-)
per month and annually, it would be Rs.83,520/- (Rs.6,960/- x 12) and
after applying multiplier '16', the total loss of income would be
Rs.13,36,320/- (Rs.83,520 x 16). For transport expenses, the Tribunal
had not awarded any amount and hence, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is
awarded under the said head. Under all other heads also the Tribunal
awarded a meagre sum and hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
11. Accordingly, the Award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:-
S.No Description Amount awarded by Amount Award confirmed or
Tribunal awarded by this enhanced or granted
(Rs) Court
(Rs)
1. Loss of income 8,64,272/- 13,36,320 enhanced
(longevity of life
and expectation of
future benefits)
2. Loss of 25,000 1,20,000/-(3 x enhanced
consortium (loss of consortium 40,000)
to the first appellant
10,000 + loss of
love and affection to
all the three
claimants 15,000)
3. Funeral expenses 2,000 18,000 enhanced
4. Loss of Estate 2,000 15,000 enhanced
5. Transport - 10,000 awarded
Expenses
Total Rs.8,93,272 Rs.14,99,320 Enhanced a sum of
(Rounded off to Rs.6,06,728/-
Rs.15,00,000
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 7/10
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part as
follows:-
(i) The Award of the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) from
Rs.8,93,272/-.
(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per
annum is confirmed.
(iii) The Award amount is apportioned as per the
award of the Tribunal.
(iv) The second respondent/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the entire modified award amount
together with accrued interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1685 of 2010
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(V Additional
District Judge, Madurai), within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgement.
(v) The appellants 1 and 3/claimants 1 and 3 are
permitted to withdraw their respective share with
proportionate interest and cost. The share of the minor
claimant/second appellant is permitted to be kept in any of
the Nationalised Banks in an interest bearing deposit, till he
attains majority and the guardian / first appellant is
permitted to withdraw the interest amount once in three
months.
No Costs.
(P.S.N.J.,) (S.K.J.,)
22.02.2021
Index :yes/No
Internet :yes
pm
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 8/10
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(V Additional District Judge), Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 9/10
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
pm
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.1373 of 2013
22.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 10/10
