Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Shanthi on 24 February, 2021
CMA No.3330 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 24.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA.No.3330 of 2014 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Tiruvannamalai ... Appellant/3rd respondent
Vs.
1. Shanthi
2. Ananthbabu
3. Aruna
4. Minor Suganthi
5. Minor Bharathi
(minors are represented by their guardian
mother Shanthi) ... Respondents 1 to 3 /claimants
6. Praveen
7. Adhimoolam ... Respondents 5,6/respondents 1 and 2
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and
judgment dated 16.06.2014 passed in MCOP No.175 of 2005 by the
Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arni.
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3330 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For respondents 1 to5 : Mr.A.Bharathi
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the
insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging the
quantum of compensation.
2. The claimants have filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one
Subramani, husband of the first claimant and father of the claimants 2
to 5, in a road accident that took place on 02.05.2005.
3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows: On
02.05.2005 at about 11.45 a.m., the deceased Subramaniam, who was a
Village Assistant, was proceeding to Polur Tahsildar Office to attend his
official work, by riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. TVS XL
Super TN 25 Y 3114 along Polur-Chetput Road and while nearing
Selvampettai opposite to I.T.I, a speedy carriage auto bearing
registration No.TN-25-D 0690 hit the motorcycle, thereby he sustained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3330 of 2014
grievous injuries all over his body and succumbed to injuries.
According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of the
driver(first respondent) of the carriage auto was the cause of accident
and since the second respondent/ owner of the vehicle insured his
motorcycle with the third respondent/ insurance company, both of them
are liable to pay compensation.
4. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance
company by filing counter affidavit.
5. Before Tribunal, the first claimant and one another
witness were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses
were examined as RW1 and RW2 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 were marked.
6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.10,41,200/- as compensation to the claimants
under various heads as extracted hereunder.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3330 of 2014
Sl Heads Amount in
No Rs.
1 Loss of dependency to the 8,65,200
claimants(6867-1717=5150 x12x14)
2 Loss of consortium to first claimant 50,000
3 Loss of love and affection to second 25,000
claimant
4 Loss of love and affection to the third 25,000
claimant
5 Loss of Love and affection to the 30,000
fourth claimant(minor)
6 Loss of love and affection to the fifth 30,000
claimant (minor)
7 Funeral expenses 10,000
8 Transportation charges 5,000
9 Damages to clothes 1,000
Total 10,41,200
Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
insurance company has filed the present appeal to scale down the
compensation.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
counsel for the claimants and I have perused the materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3330 of 2014
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the deceased Subramaniam was employed as Village
Assistant and drawing gross salary of Rs.3,563/- and the net salary was
Rs.2,548/-. , but the Tribunal has erred in fixing the income excessively
at Rs.6,867/-. He further submitted that as per the certificate issued by
the Tahsildar, the deceased was aged 50 years on the date of accident
and had only ten more years of service for superannuation. However,
the Tribunal had erred in applying the multiplier of fourteen years, with
the same multiplicand, without considering the fact that the deceased
would be retiring from service in ten years and after his retirement, he
would not be contributing the same amount to the claimants. He also
submitted that the compensation awarded towards “Loss of
Consortium” and “Loss of love and affection " is highly excessive and
therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be scaled
down.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/
claimants submitted that after considering the various factors and taking
into account the salary would be drawn in future, the Tribunal has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3330 of 2014
correctly fixed the monthly income of the deceased and awarded a just
and reasonable compensation and hence, the findings of the Tribunal
does not warrant any interference by this court.
10. Now the point for consideration is whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be scaled down.
11. Point
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for
the insurance company, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.3,563/-.
This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the claimants also. Hence,
this court fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,563/-. As
per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), 15% should
be added towards “ Future prospects”. The deceased was aged 51 years
on the date of accident and therefore, proper multiplier to be adopted in
the instant case is ' 11 ', as per the decision rendered in Sarla Varma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3330 of 2014
and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121. There are more than 4 dependants. Hence, it is
appropriate to deduct ¼ of the income of the deceased towards his
“Personal expenses”. Thus, loss of dependency is calculated as 3563+
534 = 4094 – ¼ = 3073 x12x11=4,05,636/-. Accordingly a sum of
Rs.4,05,636/- is awarded towards " Loss of dependency " and a sum of
Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards “ Loss of consortium” to the wife.
Further, the compensation awarded under the heads “ Funeral
Expenses” and “ Loss of estate” is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each.
Accordingly, the revised compensation awarded under the various
heads is extracted hereunder.
Sl. Heads Compensation Compensation
No Awarded by the enhanced/
Tribunal Awarded by
this court
1 Loss of dependency to the 8,65,200 4,05,636
claimants (6867-1717=5150 (3563+534=4097 –
x12x14) 1 /4 x 12 x 11)
2 Loss of consortium to first 50,000 40,000
claimant
3 Loss of love and affection to 25,000 25,000
second claimant
4 Loss of love and affection to 25,000 25,000
the third claimant
5 Loss of Love and affection to 30,000 30,000
the fourth claimant(minor)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3330 of 2014
Sl. Heads Compensation Compensation
No Awarded by the enhanced/
Tribunal Awarded by
this court
6 Loss of love and affection to 30,000 30,000
teh fifth claimant (minor)
7 Funeral expenses 10,000 15,000
8 Transportation charges 5,000 5,000
9 Damages to clothes 1,000 1,000
10 Loss of Estate - 15,000
Total 10,41,200 5,91,636
This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the date of deposit. It is represented by the
counsel for the appellant that as per the order of this court dated
01.12.2014 in M.P.No.1 of 2014, the entire compensation awarded by
the Tribunal has already been deposited by them and the petitioners
were permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount. Therefore,
the insurance company/appellant is at liberty to withdraw the excess
amount paid by them, over and above the revised compensation
awarded by this court. The point is answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3330 of 2014
12. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the award passed by the Tribunal is scaled down from Rs.10,41,200/-
to Rs.5,91,636/-. No costs. The connected civil miscellaneous petition
is closed.
(ii) The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit
the revised compensation of Rs.5,91,636/- with interest at the rate of
7.5.% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less
the amount if already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant is at liberty to
withdraw the excess amount, deposited by them, over and above the
compensation awarded by this court.
(iii) On such deposit being made by the insurance
company, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same, as per the
apportionment made by the Tribunal, after following due process of
law.
24.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3330 of 2014
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/non Speaking order
mst
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arni.
2. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Tiruvannamalai
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3330 of 2014
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mst
CMA. No.3330 of 2014 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
24.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
