Chellammal vs T.R.Soundarrajan
2021 Latest Caselaw 684 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 684 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 January, 2021

Madras High Court

Chellammal vs T.R.Soundarrajan on 8 January, 2021

                                                              1                   CMA No.636 of 2017




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 08.01.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                                     C.M.A.No.636 of 2017


                     1.Chellammal
                     2.Jayakodi
                     3.Rakkammal                                                    ....Appellants

                                                             Vs
                     1.T.R.Soundarrajan

                     2.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
                       No.134, Greams Road,
                       Chennai 600 006.                                            ...Respondents

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2014 made
                     in M.C.O.P.No.5966 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
                     Tribunal, ( III Court of Small Causes) Chennai.


                                     For Appellant            : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
                                     For Respondents          : R1-Exparte
                                                                Mr.S.Arunkumar for R2




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                              2                      CMA No.636 of 2017



                                                      JUDGMENT

(This case has been heard through Video Conferencing)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

2. The appeal is filed by the claimant being not satisfied with the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case is that on 12.04.2004, at about 11 p.m., in

CTH Road, Ambattur Estate, opposite to V.M.Bajaj showroom, while the

deceased Megaraj was trying to cross the road from North to South, the

motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN02 X9213 insured under the United

India Insurance Corporation Limited dashed against him resulting in

multiple injuries including head injury.

4. The accident victim was taken to the Government General

Hospital, Chennai but he died on 13.04.2012. The mother, married sister

and unmarried sister aged 28 years joined together and filed claim petition

seeking a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation, placing before the

Tribunal the fact that the deceased at the time of the accident was 26 years

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

old working as a Bakery Master earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month and

the claimants were totally depending on the deceased.

5. The Insurance Company filed counter stating that the claim of the

petitioners is excessive and the manner in which the accident occurred was

not due to the negligence of the motor cyclist. The Insurance Company also

disputed the fact that the motor cyclist had no valid driving license.

6. Before the Tribunal, the respondent has not placed any evidence in

support of their counter whereas the claimants have examined three

witnesses and marked 9 exhibits. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal has

awarded a sum of Rs.6,43,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest.

7. In this appeal, the claimants have stated that the notional fixation

of income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- is very less taking into consideration

his avocation and evidence. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have

deducted 50% of the income for personal expenditure, since he had three

dependents and as per Sarala Verma judgment, only 1/3 has to be deducted

for his personal expenditure. Learned counsel would also submit that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

multiplier applied for computing the loss of income based on the age of the

mother is incorrect and it should have been based on the age of the

deceased. Further, the learned counsel would also state that since the

Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that future

prospect should be a mandatory component for awarding compensation in

case of fatal accident, the claimants are entitled for future prospects.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that

though the claimants have stated that the deceased was working as a Bakery

Master and earning Rs.12,000/- there is iota of document to show his

avocation and income. While so, fixation of income notionally at

Rs.6,000/- is appropriate. However, the learned counsel would fairly

concede that since the Tribunal has omitted to award future prospects, the

future prospects of 40% shall be added to the notional income of the

deceased in tune with the Supreme Court judgment. He had also pointed

out that the multiplier as per the Sarala Verma judgment and other

judgments reiterated by the Supreme Court, should be the age of the

deceased and not the age of the claimants. Therefore, instead of multiplier

“11” applied by the Tribunal, multiplier “17” shall be applied. Learned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

counsel would further submit that in the light of the Pranay Sethy's case,

the award under the other heads has to be reconsidered.

9. Taking note of the rival submissions and reasons, this Court finds

that in the absence of any evidence to show the income or avocation of the

deceased, it is the notional income which could be taken into account taking

note of the age, date of accident and other factors. Accordingly, the

deceased income is fixed at Rs.6,500/- per month notionally and 40% added

to it towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of income is computed as

Rs.9,28,200/- (6500+2,600)X17X12X1/2). The award on other heads left

unaltered. Accordingly, the award of compensation to the

claimants/appellants is modified and enhanced as below:

Compensation under Various Award passed by this Heads Court Loss of income Rs. 9,28,200/-

                                   (6500+2,600)X17X12X1/2)
                                   Loss of love and affection             Rs. 1,00,000/-


                                   Funeral expenses                       Rs.   15,000/-
                                                                Total Rs. 10,43,200 /-




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

10. Accordingly, the award of Rs.6,43,000/- is enhanced to

Rs.10,43,200/- with 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition 21.12.2000 till the

date of deposit (except the default period). The said amount shall be

apportioned among the claimants as below:

                                          Claimants         Apportionment of compensation
                                   1st Claimant/Mother   Rs. 7,00,000/-
                                   Claimants 2 and 3     Rs. 1,71,500/- each

The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within a

period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On such

deposit, the claimants/appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective

shares on appropriate application.