Madras High Court
Vincent vs Vennila on 17 June, 2021
C.M.A.No.4412 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.4412 of 2019
1.Vincent
S/o Eesak
2.Sowriyammal
W/o.Vincent ... Petitioners / Appellants
Vs.
1.Vennila
W/o.Raghu
(R1 remained exparte before the Tribunal her presence
may be dispensed with)
2. The Manager
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited
situated at No.25/26
Prince Towers
4th Floor, College Road,
Nungambakkam
Chennai. ....Respondents/Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to enhance the award dated 01.06.2017 and made in
M.A.C.T.O.PNo.214/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident claims
Tribunal, Special Sub Judge (MCOP), Thiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Terry Chella Raja
For Respondent-1 : Exparte
For Respondent-2 : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 8
C.M.A.No.4412 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The parents of the deceased namely Iaisak Daisan aged 20 years
are the appellants in this appeal. They have filed this appeal against the
impugned Judgment and decree dated 01.06.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.214 of
2014 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge
(MCOP), Thiruvannamalai.
2. In this appeal, they are seeking enhancement of compensation
on the ground that the Tribunal has considered a very low notional
income of Rs.6,000/- and has awarded only a sum of Rs.10,97,000/- as
compensation.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that the deceased was working as a Mason and was earning more
than Rs.15,000/- per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in
considering Rs.6,000/- as notional income for awarding the aforesaid
compensation. The learned Counsel further submits that even as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq Vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735, the notional income of a
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 8
C.M.A.No.4412 of 2019
vegetable vendor was taken as Rs.6,500/- in the year 2008. The learned
counsel submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be
appropriately enhanced by considering the monthly income as
Rs.15,000/-. The learned Counsel fairly submits that the tribunal has
committed a mistake in adding 50% towards future prospect. However, it
is submitted that at the same time, the Tribunal has failed to award any
amount towards loss of amenities.
4. Defending the impugned judgment and decree, the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submits that the
tribunal has awarded a just compensation. Though, there are few errors
in the calculation, he submits that the over all compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is reasonable compensation and thereby, the award amount
may be confirmed and this appeal may be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
respondents. I have perused the impugned judgment and decree and the
exhibits which came to be marked before the Tribunal. I have also
considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 8
C.M.A.No.4412 of 2019
6. The accident had taken place on 04.01.2014. In my view, the
Tribunal ought to have considered slightly a higher notional income of
the deceased namely Iaisak Daisan for computing the compensation on
account of the death of the deceased.
7. Since, the accident is of the year 2014, it could be reasonable to
presume that the deceased would have been earning Rs.10,000/- per
month. Therefore, for the purpose of awarding just compensation, this
Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.10,000/- on the aforesaid amount. There shall be a further addition of
Rs.4,000/- towards future prospect as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 12.
8. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards amenities. At
the same time the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
love and affection, though, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Magma Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanuram @
Chuhruram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is
payable to each of the appellants.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 8
C.M.A.No.4412 of 2019
9. Therefore, there will be a slight modification and addition in the
over all compensation under different heads. The compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is recomputed as follows:-
Heads and Calculation Amount
Loss of earning capacity:-
Monthly Income : Rs.10,000/-
Add: *Future Prospects at 40%
(10,000 x 40/100) : Rs. 4,000/-
----------------
: Rs.14,000/-
Less: Personal Expenses 1/2nd
(14,000 x 1/2) : Rs. 7,000/-
----------------
: Rs. 7,000/-
Annual Contribution to the family
(7,000 x 12) : Rs.84,000/-
**Multiplier 18 (84,000 x 18) : Rs.15,12,000/- Rs.15,12,000/-
***Loss of Love & Affection to the appellants Rs. 80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- each)
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Transportation Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.16,32,000/-
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 8
C.M.A.No.4412 of 2019
* Future prospects is added by this Court at 40% as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
** Proper Multiplier is fixed by this Court as per the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 12.
*** Filial Consortium is granted by this court as per the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma Insurance Company Limited
Vs Nanuram @ Chuhruram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130.
10. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is therefore directed to
deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.16,32,000/- together
with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the claim
petition till the date of such deposit, less any amount already deposited
by it, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Judgment.
11. On such deposit being made by the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company, the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw their
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 8
C.M.A.No.4412 of 2019
shares together with interest accrued thereon, less any amount already
withdrawn in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal.
12. The appellant/claimant is directed to remit the deficit Court fee
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Only on such deposit of deficit court fee, the Registry shall draft
the decree of this Judgment. It is also made clear that there will no
interest for a period of delay in filing the present appeal as per order
dated 15.11.2019 in C.M.P.No.21982 of 2019.
13. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands Partly Allowed with
the above observations. No costs.
17.06.2021
(2/2)
ksa-2
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 7 of 8
C.M.A.No.4412 of 2019
C.SARAVANAN, J.
ksa-2
To:
1.The Motor Accident claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Judge (MCOP),
Thiruvannamalai.
2.The V.R.Section,
Madras High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.4412 of 2019
17.06.2021
(2/2)
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 8 of 8
