Madras High Court
Philominal (Died) vs The General Manager on 8 July, 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 28.10.2021
Delivered On : 15.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014
1.Philominal (Died)
2.Praveenkumar .. Appellants
Vs.
1.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Virudhunagar Division,
Bye Pass Road,
Madurai.
2.Iruthaya Tanislous (Died)
3.Santhiyai Irudhayaraj
4.A.Sahayani .. Respondents
(Respondents 3 and 4 are brought on records
as legal heirs of the deceased first appellant
vide Court order dated 08.07.2021 made in
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5651 to 5653 of 2021 in
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014 by RTJ)
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award amount in M.A.C.O.P.No.130 of 2009
order dated 09.11.2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum
Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.K.Kumaravel
For 1st Respondent : Mr.M.Kayalarasan
For Respondents 3 and 4 : Mr.M.Sridharan
For 2nd Respondent : No Appearance
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.130 of 2009 dated 09.11.2011 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.
2.The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondents 1 and 2
herein are the respondents in the claim petition. The appellants herein have filed a
claim petition in M.A.C.O.P.No.130 of 2009, claiming compensation for the death of
one Jesintha, in an accident that took place on 13.09.2007. The Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.4,02,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Two Thousand only) as
compensation. Against which, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
3.A brief substance of the claim petition in M.A.C.O.P.No.130 of 2009 is
as follows:
On 13.09.2007, at about 09.45 a.m., when the deceased was walking along
the left side of the road, a bus bearing registration No.TN-67-N-0239 was driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014
deceased was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and she died on
14.09.2007. The deceased was working as a Tailoring Teacher and was earning Rs.
300/- per month and she worked as a Librarian and was earning Rs.500/- per month.
The deceased was an divorcee. The petitioners are dependants of the deceased and
they claim a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) as compensation.
4.Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent herein is as
follows:
The first respondent driver drove the vehicle in slow and cautious manner.
When the bus was nearing the bus stop, another bus was stationed in the bus stop and
passengers were boarding the bus. The first respondent driver after giving signal
overtook the stationed bus, at that time, the deceased suddenly crossed the road and
she dashed against the bus. The deceased herself is responsible for the accident. The
first respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
5.Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent herein is as
follows:
The second respondent is the brother of the deceased and he brought her
up and educated her. He spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the marriage of the
deceased. After divorce, the deceased was taken care of by the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014
The second respondent was aged about 55 years and he was depending on the
income of the deceased. The second respondent admitted the injured in the hospital
and spent for the medical expenses. The father of the deceased died after the death of
the deceased. The second respondent has to be allotted a share in the compensation.
6.On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and six
documents were marked. On the side respondents in the claim petition, two witnesses
were examined and three documents were marked. After considering both the sides,
the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,02,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Two
Thousand only) as compensation to be paid by the first respondent therein. Against
which, the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
7.On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the Tribunal ought to have
fixed the monthly income as Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only). The deceased
was employed as a teacher and she ought to have earned more than Rs.6,000/-
(Rupees Six Thousand only) per month. The amount awarded for loss of love and
affection has to be enhanced. The award under various other heads are to be
enhanced. The second respondent is not the legal heir of the deceased. He is not a
dependant. He is not entitled for any compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014
8.On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the deceased was 38 years
and she was working as the tailoring teacher. In support of this contention, a
judgment of this Court in the case of Bhuvaneshwari v. Mani and another reported
in 2020 (2) TN MAC 389 is cited, wherein this Court has discussed the importance
of Homemaker and this Court has fixed the monthly income as Rs.9,000/- (Rupees
Nine Thousand only) along with 40% future prospects.
9.The learned counsel for the appellants would rely upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Praney Sethi
and Others reported in 2017(2) TNMAC 609, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has applied multiplier '16' and awarded Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) as
compensation. It is stated that the Court can enhance the compensation.
10.The learned counsel for the appellants would rely upon another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramla and Others v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2018 (2) TNMAC 721.
11.On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the amount claimed
is Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,02,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs and Two Thousand only). The appeal was filed only for a sum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014
of Rs.1,98,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ninety Eight Thousand only). The award at
that time is reasonable. The notional income to be fixed as Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand only) per month. In support of this contention, a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others
reported in 2001 ACJ 1735.
12.On the side of the second respondent, it is stated that the father and
mother of the deceased pre-deceased her. The second respondent is entitled for share
in the compensation.
13.The learned counsel for the appellants would rely upon another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and Others v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2021 (1) TNMAC 135, wherein it is held
that the monthly salary was fixed as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).
14.There is no dispute regarding the liability. It is seen that the appellants
as the claimants in the claim petition claim that the deceased was earning only Rs.
750/- to Rs.800/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income as Rs.
3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). There was no evidence on the side of the
appellants to prove that the deceased was working as a Tailoring teacher or as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014
Librarian. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal at that time is reasonable. After
deducting 1/3rd for her own expenses, the deceased might have contributed Rs.
2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month to her family. After applying
multiplier '16', the loss of income is calculated as Rs.3,84,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
and Eighty Four Thousand only), which is reasonable. As per Praney Sethi case, the
appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) towards
conventional charges. In total, a sum of Rs.4,54,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty
Four Thousand only) is awarded as compensation.
15.The claim of the second respondent is that he was dependant of the
deceased, which is unsustainable. The second respondent is only a brother and he is
not entitled for any compensation.
16.In the above circumstances, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. The appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,54,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
and Fifty Four Thousand only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% from
the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
17.The first respondent is directed to deposit the above said amount if not
deposited earlier, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014
R. THARANI, J.
MRN
order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount
equally, after deducting any amount received by them earlier without filing any
formal petition before the Tribunal. Excess amount, if any, deposited shall be
refunded to the first respondent. No Costs.
15.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
MRN
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID – 19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
