Madras High Court

Katuru Bindu Amma vs Metropolitan Transport ... on 6 July, 2021

                                                                 CMA Nos.2983 of 2014 and 1174 of 2016

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 06.07.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                        CMA Nos.2983 of 2014 and 1174 of 2016
                                                        and
                                               CMP No.8871 of 2016

                     Katuru Bindu Amma                     ...   Appellant in
                                                                 CMA No.2983 of 2014
                                                                       and
                                                                 Respondent in

CMA No.1174 of 2016 Versus

Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai Division) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondent in CMA No.2983 of 2014 and Appellant in CMA No.1174 of 2016

Prayer in CMA No.2983 of 2014 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2014 in MACTOP No.1382 of 2011, on the file of the IV Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai. Prayer in CMA No.1174 of 2016 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act to set aside the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P. No.1382 of 2011, dated 22.04.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

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

CMA Nos.2983 of 2014 and 1174 of 2016

For Appellant in CMA No.2983 of 2014 and respondent in CMA No.1174 of 2016 : Mr. R. Kalaiarasan

For Appellant in CMA No.1174 of 2016 and respondent in CMA No.2983 of 2014 : Mr.S.Sivakumar

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Heard Video Conference)

CMA No.2983 of 2014 has been filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded under the impugned award dated

22.04.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Small

Causes Court), Chennai in MACTOP No.1382 of 2011.

2.CMA No.1174 of 2016 has been filed by the Transport

Corporation challenging the very same award passed by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Small Causes Court), Chennai in

MACTOP No.1382 of 2011. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal as according to them, it is excessive.

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

CMA Nos.2983 of 2014 and 1174 of 2016

3. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under

the impugned award are as follows :-

                                               Heads                 Amount awarded
                                                                      by the Tribunal
                                                                           (Rs.)
                                   Pecuniary loss is calculated as             1,80,000
                                   Rs.3,000 x 12 x 5
                                   Loss of love and affection to                  50000
                                   the petitioner
                                   Funeral expenses                               15000
                                 Total                                2,45,000

4. Heard Mr.R. Kalaiarasan, learned counsel for the appellant /

claimant in CMA No.2983 of 2014 as well as the learned counsel for the

respondent in CMA No.1174 of 2016 and Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned

counsel for the appellant /Transport Corporation in CMA No.1174 of

2016 as well as the learned counsel for the respondent / Transport

Corporation in CMA No.2983 of 2014.

5. This Court has perused the materials and evidence available on

record before the Tribunal.

6. In the claim petition, the claimant has pleaded that the deceaed

Katuru Tulasi Rao @ Sankar was a Mason, aged 21 years and was

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

CMA Nos.2983 of 2014 and 1174 of 2016

earning Rs.500/- per day at the time of an accident, which happened on

03.01.2011.

7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant has filed three documents,

which were marked as Exs.P1 to P3 and two witnesses were examined

on her side viz., the claimant herself as PW1 and a Co-employee cum eye

witness to the accident as PW2. On the side of the Transport Corporation,

the Driver of the bus, who caused the accident was examined as RW1.

But no documents were filed on their side.

8. The Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.6,000/-. The accident happened in the year 2011. The

deceased was a Mason. No contra evidence has also been produced by

the Transport Corporation to disprove the contention of the claimant that

the deceased was a Mason. If the Tribunal has given due consideration

to the year of the accident, it would have fixed the notional monthly

income of the deceased at an higher sum. This Court is of the considered

view that for an accident that happened in the year 2011, the correct

assessment of the notional monthly income for a Mason would have been

Rs.7,500/-. Accordingly, this Court fixes the notional monthly income of

the deceased at Rs.7,500/- instead of Rs.6,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA Nos.2983 of 2014 and 1174 of 2016

9. The Tribunal has erroneously adopted 5 multiplier by taking

into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased viz., the claimant

instead of the age of the deceased himself, who was aged 21 years at the

time of the accident. It is settled law while adopting multiplier, the age

of the deceased must be taken into consideration and not the age of the

mother of the deceased. If the age of the deceased was taken into

consideration, the correct multiplier that will have to be adopted for a

person aged 21 years is 18. Accordingly, this Court modifies the

multiplier to 18 instead of 5 erroneously adopted by the Tribunal.

10. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards

loss of future prospects to the claimant, which she is legally entitled to as

per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & others reported in

2017 16 SCC 680. In accordance with the said judgment, this Court

awards a compensation of 40% to the claimant towards loss of future

prospects.

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

CMA Nos.2983 of 2014 and 1174 of 2016

11.Being a bachelor, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50%

towards personal expenses of the deceased, which is confirmed by this

Court.

12. The Tribunal has erroneously awarded a compensation of

Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is not in

accordance with Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra, which has fixed

the same at Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of

love and affection s reduced to Rs.40,000/- from Rs.50,000/-, fixed by

the Tribunal.

13. With regard to the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal towards funeral expenses is concerned, the same is confirmed

by this Court, as it is in accordance with settled law.

14. The claimant is legally entitled for loss of estate in accordance

with the settled law. However, the Tribunal has erroneously failed to

award any compensation towards the said head. Accordingly, this Court

awards a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the claimant towards loss of

estate in accordance with the settled law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA Nos.2983 of 2014 and 1174 of 2016

15. For the foregoing reasons, the award of the Tribunal is hereby

enhanced in the following manner :

Heads Amount awarded Amount awarded by the Tribunal by this Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Pecuniary loss is calculated 180000 1134000 as * # * Rs.3,000 x 12 x 5 # Rs.7,500 + 40% Less 50% x 12 x 18 Loss of love and affection to 50000 40000 the petitioner Funeral expenses 15000 15000 Loss of estate - 15000 Total 245000 1204000

16.Since, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

by this Court, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Transport

Corporation in CMA No.1174 of 2016, wherein their only contention is

that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

17. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant / claimant in

CMA No.2983 of 2014 stands partly allowed by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.2,45,000/- to Rs.12,04,000/-, as indicated above

and the appeal filed by the appellant / Transport Corporation in CMA

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

CMA Nos.2983 of 2014 and 1174 of 2016

No.1174 of 2016 stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

18. The appellant in CMA No.1174 of 2016 as well as the

respondent in CMA No.2983 of 2014 / Transport Corporation is directed

to deposit the entire award amount as assessed by this Court together

with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of