Madras High Court
Bala Ganapathy vs Hari Pandian on 21 January, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 21.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
C.M.A(MD)No.716 of 2016
Bala Ganapathy : Appellant/Claimant
Vs.
1.Hari Pandian
2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
No.414, Veer Severkar Marg,
Near Siddhu Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi,
Mumbai-400 025. : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional
District and Sessions Judge), Tirunelveli, made in MCOP No.1232
of 2013, dated 19.01.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For 1st Respondent : Mr.M.Natarajan
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging
the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II
Additional District and Sessions Judge), Tirunelveli, dated
19.01.2015 made in MCOP No.1232 of 2013.
2.The short facts of the case is that on 27.09.2013 at about
8.15 am, the deceased Edward Abram Kumar was travelling in a
Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motor Cycle TN-72-AG-1239 as pillion
rider from south to north on Tirunelveli-Madurai main Road. When
the motor cycle reaching near police check post, erected near
Subburaj Spinning Mill, the rider of the motor cycle without slow
down his motor cycle in a hurdled place zigzag manner to slow
down cross the post and as a result of which, the motor cycle hit on
the pole erected on the side of the road and as a consequence of
which, the deceased was thrown out of the motor cycle and fell
down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and immediately,
he was admitted in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, where he
was taking treatment for some-time and thereafter, he succumbed
to injury. The mother of the deceased being the legal heir of the
deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10,00,000/- on the ground that the rider of the motor cycle was
responsible for the accident.
3.The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the
driver of the offending vehicle has caused the accident and
awarded compensation of Rs.6,83,000/- together with interest @
8% p.a. Being not satisfied with the award of compensation, the
claimant as appellant is before this court.
4.Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit
that the award passed by the Tribunal is very low and the monthly
income fixed by the tribunal is very meager and in respect of
conventional heads, the same has to be enhanced to some extent.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued
in support of the judgment of the tribunal.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased
was 16 years old, at the time of accident and he was a student. The
Tribunal fixed notional monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. Since the
deceased is an unmarried, the tribunal has deducted 50% from the
total income, thereby calculated the loss of income at Rs.3,000/-
per month. Considering the age of the deceased, the tribunal has
adopted multiplier 18 and thereby, the loss of dependency of the
decease was calculated at Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 18).
Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and
affection and Rs.25,000/- towards travel and funeral expenses. In
total, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,83,000/- as compensation.
7.It is mainly argued on the side of the appellant/claimant
that the income arrived at by the tribunal is not justified for an
unmarried boy at the age of 16 years and the deceased was a
student before the accident and hence, the income fixed by the
tribunal is not correct.
8.Perusal of the records would reveal that at the time of
accident, the deceased Edwad Abram Kumar was studying II year
EEE in Polytechnic College and if he is alive, he would become an
Engineer or he will get some attractive job. Considering the above
fact, this court fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7,000/- per month. Having regard to the judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017)13 SCALE 12, an addition of
40% towards future prospects would also be warranted. Since the
deceased is an unmarried boy, 50% has to be deducted towards
his personal and living expenses. Considering the above facts, it
would be appropriate to fix notional income at Rs.7,000/- and by
adding 40% toward future prospects, the monthly income is arrived
at Rs.9,800/- (Rs.7,000/- + Rs.2,800/-). Since the deceased was an
unmarried boy, after deducting 50% towards his personal and living
expenses, loss of income arrived at Rs.4,900/- per month. By
applying proper multiplier '18', this Court awards Rs.10,58,400/-
[Rs.4,900/- x 12 x 18] towards loss of income. In respect of
conventional heads, the award of the tribunal is reasonable and
they are confirmed. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the
tribunal is modified as hereunder:-
S.No Head Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the tribunal by this court [Rs.]
[Rs.]
01 Loss of Income 6,48,000/- 10,58,400/-
02. Loss of love & affection 10,000/- 10,000/-
03. Travel and Funeral 25,000/- 25,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.6,83,000/- Rs.10,93,400/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. The award amount of Rs.6,83,000/- is enhanced to Rs.
10,93,400/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award
amount together with accrued interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited to the credit of claim petition, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On
such the compliance, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire
amount without filing any formal petition. The claimant shall pay
the enhanced court fee, if any. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
The II Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
Karur.
2.The Record Keeper,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
Judgement made
in C.M.A(MD)No.716 of 2016
21.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
