Madras High Court
Jaya vs N.P.Dilip on 15 June, 2021
C.M.A.No.132 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.132 of 2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
1.Jaya
2.Settu
3.Prabhakaran ... Appellants
Vs.
1.N.P.Dilip
2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager,
G.E. Plaza, Air Port Road, Yerwada,
Pune – 411 006. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.07.2019
made in M.C.O.P.No.430 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal - cum - the Special District Judge, Dharmapuri and
enhance the award amount.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 8
C.M.A.No.132 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sathiaseelan
For First Respondent : No appearance
For Second Respondent : M/s.Poomalai
*******
JUDGMENT
The claimants are the appellants in this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal. They have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge),
Dharmapuri, in impugned Judgment and Decree dated 10.07.2019 in
M.C.O.P.No.430 of 2015.
2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.9,80,000/- as compensation together with interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit
(except the default period if any) and costs, to the appellants.
3. The first appellant is wife and the second and third appellants
are the children of the deceased Velayudam who met with an accident
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 8
C.M.A.No.132 of 2020
while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler driven by one
Durai in the Krishnagiri – Salem National High Way, near
M.G.R.Complex on 01.03.2014 at about 1.45 a.m. The accident is said to
have taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the
first respondent, of a car bearing registration No.KA-03-MH-7540
insured with the second respondent Insurance Company which came from
the same direction from behind the two wheeler and hit the two wheeler.
As a result of the accident, the deceased Velayudam sustained grievous
injuries and died on the spot and the said Durai sustained grievous
injuries.
4. It is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.9,10,000/- towards pecuniary loss by considering the notional income
of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month. The learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the deceased Velayudam was running a Mobile
Hotel and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and that the food
safety officer has deposed evidence as P.W.3 to substantiate the same.
He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amounts under
the other conventional heads and therefore prays for enhancement of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 8
C.M.A.No.132 of 2020
compensation by considering the notional income of the deceased as
Rs.20,000/- per month in the light of overwhelming the evidences
produced before the Tribunal.
5. Defending the impugned Judgment and the Decree, the learned
counsel for the second respondent submits that the impugned Judgment
and Decree is well reasoned and requires no interference and therefore
prays for dismissal of this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company. I have also
perused the evidences on record which were marked before the Tribunal
and the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Tribunal.
7. Ex.P7 is the Registration Certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu
Food Safety and Drug Control Department to the deceased Velayudam.
The accident is of the year 2014 (on 01.03.2014). The adoption of
notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month by the Tribunal
for awarding compensation towards pecuniary loss appears to be very
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 8
C.M.A.No.132 of 2020
low. The Tribunal ought to have considered a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month as notional income of the deceased for awarding just
compensation to the appellants in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, (2003) 2
SCC 274, wherein, it has been held that it is not only the duty of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court but also that of the Tribunal and the High Court
to award a just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in case
the claimant(s) deserves such compensation.
8. The same was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs.
M.Ramadevi and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 379.
9. It is also noticed that the Tribunal has not awarded any amounts
towards loss parental consortium to the second and third appellants as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and
Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : 2018 OnLine SC 1546.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 8
C.M.A.No.132 of 2020
10. In the light of the above discussions, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is re-computed as follows:-
Heads and Calculation Re-quantified
amount of this
Court
Loss of dependency:-
Monthly Income of the deceased - Rs.15,000/-
Annual Income (15,000 x 12) : Rs.1,80,000/-
Add: Future prospectus 25 %
(1,80,000 x 25/100) : Rs. 45,000/-
------------------
: Rs.2,25,000/-
Less: Personal Expenses 1/3rd
(2,25,000 x 1/3) : Rs. 75,000/-
------------------
: Rs.1,50,000/-
Multiplier – 14 ( 1,50,000 x 14) : Rs.21,00,000/-
Rs.21,00,000/-
Loss of consortium to the first appellant Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of filial consortium to the second and third appellants
(Rs.40,000 x 2) Rs. 80,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.22,50,000/-
11. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.9,80,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.22,50,000/-.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 8
C.M.A.No.132 of 2020
12. The appellants have claimed a restricted compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/-. Since the enhanced compensation is higher than the
compensation claimed, the appellants are therefore directed to pay the
deficit court fee for this appeal on the enhanced compensation, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
13. Only on payment of deficit court fee, the Registry will draft the
Decree copy to facilitate the withdrawal of the enhanced amount of
compensation from the Tribunal. The appellants are therefore also
directed to produce the proof of such deposit of court fee before the
Registry for drafting of the decree.
14. The second respondent is however directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.22,50,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of
claim petition till the date of deposit (except the default period, if any)
and costs, less any already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 7 of 8
C.M.A.No.132 of 2020
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen
15. On such deposit, the appellants are directed to withdraw the
same together interest and costs in the same proportion awarded by the
Tribunal, less any amount already withdrawn, by filing suitable
applications before Tribunal.
16. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No
cost.
15.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
jen
To
1.The Special District Judge,
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Dharmapuri.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, Madras High Court.
C.M.A.No.132 of 2020
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 8 of 8
