Madras High Court
Shanthi vs R.Karthikayini on 24 February, 2021
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
1.Shanthi
2.Anand
3.Venmani Ilakiya
4.Govinda Bharathi
5.Chinnaponnu : Appellants / Petitioners
Vs.
1.R.Karthikayini
2.The Branch Manager,
The National Insurance Company Limited,
4132, East Raja Street,
Pudukkottai. : Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree passed
in M.C.O.P.No.725 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal(Principal District Judge), Pudukkottai dated 29.03.2019 insofar
as disallowed portion of the compensation.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
For R-2 : Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
Being aggrieved by the award and decree dated 29.03.2019
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Principal District Judge),
Pudukkottai in M.C.O.P.No.725 of 2017 in respect of the quantum of
compensation awarded to the claimants for the death of one Thiruppathi
in a road traffic accident occurred on 27.08.2017, the
appellants/claimants, have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. Brief facts are that on 27.08.2017 at about 4.00 p.m., when the
deceased Thiruppathi was riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration
No.TN55 H 8986 Activa, from Sivanthanpatti to Pudukkottai in
Thanjavur-Pudukkottai main road, near Chinnayachathiram Pandian
Veeralakshmi's house, a car bearing Registration
No.TN 55AC 9396 owned by the first respondent and insured with the
second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the two wheeler. 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 58 years and
was working as Headmaster in Panchayat Union Primary School and was
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
earning Rs.70,000/- per month. Regarding the accident, a Criminal Case
was registered against the Driver of the car and subsequently, charge
sheet was also laid as against the Driver of the car. Alleging that the
accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the
Claimants, have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of
Rs.60,00,000/-.
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, on the side of the claimants, the wife of the
deceased – Sandhi was examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining
P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked on their side. On the side of
the Insurance Company, the Driver of the car was examined as
R.W.1 and no documents were marked.
5. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal
held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the car and the deceased subsequently died of the injuries sustained in
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
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.5,60,500/- under various heads.
6. Challenging the award of the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of
compensation, the appellants/claimants have filed the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
7. With regard to quantum, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/claimants would contend that the deceased was a Government
Employee and working as a Headmaster in Panchayat Union Primary
School and earning Rs.70,000/- monthly salary and the accident
happened in the year 2017 and his retirement will be in the month of
April, 2018 and if the accident did not happen, the deceased would have
received the increment and his pay would have been increased.
However, without considering the same, the Tribunal awarded a meagre
sum and the same has to be enhanced.
8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants relied on the following decisions:
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
(i) In National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Rani
and others reported in 2004 (1) MLJ 131;
(ii) In Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others
reported in 2013(3) CTC 883; and
(iii) In Saraladevi and Others v. Divisional
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd., and
other reported in 2014 (2) TN MAC 546(SC).
9. In Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others(cited supra), it
has been held as follows:
“19. In a report on accident, there is no question
of any reference to any claim for damages, different
heads of damages or such other details. It is the duty of
the Tribunal to build on that report and award just,
equitable, fair and reasonable compensation with
reference to the settled principles on assessment of
damages. Thus, on that ground also we hold that the
Tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of the claims
made in the Application, if any, to properly award a just,
equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, if
necessary, ignoring the claim made in the Application for
compensation.”
10. The learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal awarded
a just and reasonable compensation and there is no need to interfere
with the same.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
12. In National Insurance Company v. M.Arulmozhi reported
in TNMAC 334 referred to supra, it has been held as follows:
“Principle of Split Multiplier:
12. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was employed as Assistant
Administrative Officer in Agricultural Department and was earning an
income of Rs.17,529/- per month, which is evidenced by Exs.P.6 and P.7
Salary Certificates. From a perusal of Ex.P.6, it could be seen that a sum of
Rs.255/- is deducted compulsorily from the salary. Therefore, the deceased
was getting a net monthly income of Rs.17,274/-. The age of the deceased on
the date of accident was 57 years and the multiplier to be adopted is 8, are
not in dispute. From the materials available on record, it can be inferred
that on the date of accident, the deceased was 57 years and 3 months old
and had only 9 months of service before his retirement. Though normally 8
multiplier would be applied in computing the loss of dependency, in this
case, the same cannot be done as the income of the deceased will not be the
same from the date of retirement. Though the deceased had only 9 months of
service, the appellant has got no serious objection to round it of to one year.
Accordingly, the period before retirement is taken as one year. Therefore,
the loss dependency before retirement of the deceased would be Rs. 17,274/-
X 12 X < X 1 = Rs.1,55,466/-.
13. Now, the dependency after the retirement of the deceased is to be
considered. Had the deceased Murugesan been alive, after the age of
superannuation, he would get only half of the salary as pension. Therefore,
it is an exceptional case where the split multiplier has to be adopted, ie., 1 +
7 = 8. As there is no scope for evidence about the prospect of future
increment of the deceased and since the earning would be reduced to 50%
after retirement, the multiplier of 8 as adopted by the Tribunal cannot be
sustained. Hence, this Court feels that split multiplier can be adopted and as
such, after superannuation, 7 multiplier would apply. Therefore, the loss of
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 6/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
dependency from pensionary benefits would be Rs.8,637/- X 12 X < X 7 =
Rs.5,44,131/-.”
13. In Reliance GIC v. K.Meena reported in 2015(2) TNMAC
449(DB), it has been held as follows:
“19. It is significant to note here that in so far as the
deceased is concerned, the age of superannuation is 58 years.
Since he had died at the age of 47, 11 years of service was left
over. The Tribunal had therefore, as per the split multiplier
method, multiplied the entire annual dependency of the family at
first with 11 years.
20. As observed in the foregoing paragraph, the
remaining two (11 + 2 = 13) was multiplied with the 50% of the
annual dependency of the family.
21.The calculation of split multiplier has been detailed
as under:-
a. After deducting the 10% of income tax from the annual
dependency of Rs.2,20,824/-, the remaining balance would be
Rs.2,14,742/-. Since the deceased had to maintain his family
consisting of five members, the Tribunal had allowed 1/4th
deduction towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, the 3/4
remainder would be Rs.1,61,057/-. Then, the life dependency of
the family would be Rs.17,71,627/-(Rs.1,61,057 X 11). For the
remaining two years, 50% of the annual income of Rs.2,14,742/-
has to be multiplied with 2. Then, the 50% of annual income for
two years would be Rs.2,14,742/- (Rs.1,07,371/- X 2). Therefore,
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 7/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
the life dependency for 11 years would be Rs.17,71,627/- and for
the remaining two years would be Rs.2,14,742/-. In total, the
pecuniary loss of the family would come to Rs.19,86,369/-.''
14. The argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants/claimants is accepted, if the accident did not happen, the
deceased would have received the increment and his pay would have
been increased and it would be appropriate to apply 'split multiplier' in
this case. As the deceased was aged '58' years old, Sarla Verma & Ors
vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), the
multiplier applicable is '9” and it should be applied '1 + 8' and the loss of
income should be calculated as follows:
Loss of Income upto 58 years:
The monthly income of the deceased as per the salary certificate is
Rs.70,000/- by deducting 20% towards income tax, it would be
Rs.56,000/- (70,000 – 14,000) and therefore, loss of income upto
58 years would be Rs.6,72,000/- (Rs.56,000 X 12 X 1) and after
deducting 1/5th amount towards personal expenses, it would be
Rs.5,37,600/- ( Rs.672,000 – 1,34,400/-).
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 8/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
Loss of income after retirement:
50% of last drawn monthly salary would be Rs.35,000/- and after
deducting 10% towards income tax, it would be Rs.31,500/-
(Rs.35,000 – 3,500) and the annual loss of income would be Rs.3,78,000
(Rs.31,500 X 12) and the multiplier applicable after retirement is
“8” (9-1) and therefore, loss of income would be Rs.30,24,000/- after
deducting 1/5th amount towards personal expenses, it would be Rs.
24,19,200/-.
15. Therefore, the total loss of future income would be
Rs.29,56,800/- (Rs.5,37,600/- + Rs.24,19,200/-).
16. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards
funeral expenses and the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Under the
head loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded Rs.44,000/- and awarded
Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. As per Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Nanu Ram & Others., reported in
2018 (1) TN MAC 452 (SC), a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded to the
wife/first claimant and Rs.1,60,000/-(Rs.40,000/- each) is awarded to
the appellants 2 to 5/claimants 2 to 5 and no amount is awarded towards
loss of estate and for transportation charges and therefore, a sum of
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 9/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- is awarded respectively, under these heads.
18.Accordingly, the Award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:-
S.No Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of income Nil 29,56,800/- awarded
2. Loss of 44,000/- 40,000/- reduced
consortium to
the first
respondent
3. Loss of love of 5,00,000 Rs.1,60,000/- reduced
love and (each 40,000)
affection to the
respondents 2 to
4. Funeral Expenses 16,500 25,000 enhanced
5. Loss of Life Nil 15,000 awarded
Estate
6. Transportation Nil 10,000 awarded
charges
Total Rs.5,69,500/- Rs.32,06,800/- Enhanced by
Rs.26,37,300/-
19.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part as
follows:-
(i) The Award of the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.5,69,500/- to Rs.32,06,800/-(Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs
Six Thousand and Eight Hundred Only).
(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per
annum is confirmed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 10/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
(iii) The Award amount is apportioned as per the
award of the Tribunal.
(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
award amount together with accrued interest and costs to
the credit of claim petition, less the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(vi) The appellants/claimants, are permitted to
withdraw their respective shares with proportionate interest
and cost.
No costs.
(P.S.N.J.,) (S.K.J.,)
24.02.2021
Index :yes/No
Internet :yes
pm
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge), Pudukkottai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 11/12
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
pm
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.590 of 2020
24.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 12/12
