Madras High Court
Muthammal vs V.Karthik on 9 July, 2021
C.M.A.No.4009 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No.4009 of 2019
1.Muthammal
2.Chinnammal
3.Mani
4.Chinnammal
5.Muthulakshmi
6.Rajendran .. Appellants
Vs.
1.V.Karthik
2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Parimalam Complex, 2nd Floor,
11, EVN Road, Erode – 638 011. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
22.06.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.1434 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
For R-1 : Mr.R.Raghavendran
For R-2 : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4009 of 2019
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 22.06.2016 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1434 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Judge, Namakkal.
2. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1434 of 2013 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge,
Namakkal. They filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Muthunaicker who died
in the accident that took place on 21.12.2012.
3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the motor cycle belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the
respondents 1 & 2 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as
compensation to the appellants.
4. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4009 of 2019
the Tribunal, the appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that at
the time of accident, the deceased was aged 80 years, working as an
agriculturist and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. To prove the
avocation and income of the deceased, the appellants examined one
Sathanaicker as P.W.3. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.3,
fixed a meagre sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as notional income of the
deceased. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income at Rs.8,000/-.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and
loss of love and affection are meagre. The total compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is also meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent
contended that the appellant failed to prove the avocation and income of the
deceased by producing documentary evidence. In the absence of any material
evidence with regard to avocation and income of the deceased, a sum of
Rs.4,500/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the
deceased is not meagre. The deceased was aged 80 years at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4009 of 2019
accident. The appellants are the daughters, son, daughter-in-law, grand
daughter and grandson of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased,
the appellants cannot be the dependents of the deceased. Only the deceased
would be depending upon the income of the appellants. The Tribunal
considering the entire materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as
compensation to the appellants which is excessive and hence, the appellant is
not entitled to any enhancement and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants as
well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent / Insurance
Company and perused the entire materials on recod.
8. It is the contention of the appellants that at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged 80 years, working as an agriculturist and was earning a
sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. To prove the avocation and income, the
appellants examined one Sathanaicker as P.W.3. The Tribunal considered the
evidence of P.W.3 and rejected the same on the ground that no materials
documents were filed to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In
the absence of any material evidence, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.4,500/-
per month as notional income of the deceased. Considering the age of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4009 of 2019
deceased and the year of the accident, the notional income fixed by the
Tribunal is not meagre warranting interference by this Court. Similarly, the
amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love & affection and
funeral expenses are not also meagre and hence the same are confirmed.
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,95,000/- is hereby confirmed.
The 2nd respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount
awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any
already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1434 of 2013 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Namakkal.
On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their share of the
award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs, on the basis of the
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, less the amount if any already
withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
09.07.2021
rgr
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4009 of 2019
rgr
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Namakkal.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
C.M.A.No.4009 of 2019
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
