Madras High Court
Nandhini vs K.C.Periasamy on 29 June, 2021
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
1.Nandhini
2.Minor Nisha Shri
3.Minor Dheena
(Minors rep.by their natural friend
guardian / mothre Nandhini)
4.S.E.Madhes ... Appellants
..Vs..
1.K.C.Periasamy
2.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having office at L.R.N. Colony,
Saradha College Road,
Salem – 636 302. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 20.04.2016
made in MCOP.No.1869 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Salem.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
For Appellants : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For R-2 : Mr.D.Baskaran
R1 – Exparte
JUDGMENT
(This Appeal has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated
20.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional
District Court, Salem in MCOP.No.1869 of 2014.
2. Heard Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the
Appellants/claimants and Mr.D.Baskaran, learned counsel for the second
respondent/ Insurance Company. The first respondent has remained exparte
both before the Tribunal as well as this Court.
3. The Appellants/claimants unsatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal has preferred this Appeal seeking for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
enhancement. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the Appellants/claimants are as follows :
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of dependency 9,94,500/-
Loss of consortium 1,00,000/-
Medical expenses 1,30,800/-
Loss of love and affection 2,00,000/-
(50000 x 4)
Transport charges 10,000/-
Funeral expenses 10,000/-
Total 14,45,300/-
4. The deceased M.Sathiskumar was aged 28 years and was a JCB
operator, when the accident happened on 27.07.2014. The age and
avocation of the deceased has not been disputed by the 2nd respondent
before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the Appellants/claimants who are
the legal heirs of the deceased have pleaded that the deceased was earning
Rs.25,000/- per month at the time of accident. Before the Tribunal, the
appellants/claimants have filed salary certificate of the deceased dated
15.08.2014, marked as Ex.P6 which discloses that the deceased was
earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants have examined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
three witnesses on their side including Mr.Saravanan as PW3 who has
deposed that his father is the owner of M/s.Southern Minerals in which the
deceased is alleged to have been working on the date of accident. The
salary certificate Ex.P6 dated 15.08.2014 however has been issued by
Saravana Traders. The accident happened in the year 2014. When the 2nd
respondent has not placed any evidence to disprove the avocation of the
deceased that he was a JCB operator and that too when PW3 has deposed
alongwith salary certificate though pertaining to a different concern that the
deceased was earning Rs.25,000/ - per month, this Court is of the
considered view that fixation of monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.6,500/- is too low which will have to be necessarily increased.
5. This Court, though disbelieves Ex.P6/salary certificate, is of the
considered view that the notional monthly income of the deceased fixed by
the Tribunal at Rs.6,500/- is too low, considering the fact that there are no
inconsistencies in the pleadings of the Appellants/Claimants as well as in
their deposition that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In
the counter statement filed by the second respondent / Insurance Company,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
they have also not disputed the avocation of the deceased. While that being
so, this Court is of the considered view that the deceased would have earned
atleast Rs.12,000/- per month on the date of the accident. Hence, this
Court fixes the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- instead of
Rs.6,500/- fixed by the Tribunal.
6. The 4th appellant who is the father of the deceased cannot be
treated as a dependent, as the deceased himself was aged 28 years at the
time of accident. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the
Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased instead of 1/4th. Accordingly, the same is modified by this Court.
The Tribunal has correctly adopted multiplier 17 while calculating the loss
of pecuniary benefits payable to the appellants/claimants which is
confirmed by this Court. However, the Tribunal has erroneously failed to
award loss of future prospects to the appellants/claimants which they are
legally entitled to as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Shethi and
Others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. This Court, after giving due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
consideration to the age and avocation of the deceased, awards 40%
towards loss of future prospects to the appellants/claimants in accordance
with the Pranay Shethi judgment referred to supra. Hence, the loss of
pecuniary benefits awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award is
enhanced to Rs.22,84,800/- from Rs.9,94,500/-, as detailed hereunder -
Rs.12000 + 4800 (40% of 12000) x 12 x 2/3 x 17
7. With regard to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
loss of consortium is concerned, the same is on the higher side and not in
accordance with the Pranay Shethi judgment referred to supra. In
accordance with the said judgment, the first appellant/claimant who is the
wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- and therefore, this
Court is reducing the compensation towards loss of consortium from
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. With regard to the filial / parental consortium
awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is also on the higher side
which will have to be reduced to Rs.1,20,000/- from Rs.2,00,000/- in view
of the fact that the appellants 2, 3 & 4 are the children and father of the
deceased, each entitled for Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
compensation of Rs.1,30,800/- towards medical expenses in accordance
with the medical bills submitted by the appellants/claimants before the
Tribunal which is confirmed by this Court. Similarly, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses in
accordance with the settled law. However, the Tribunal has awarded only
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses which is low and the
same has to be increased to Rs.15,000/- in accordance with Pranay Shethi
judgment referred to supra. Accordingly, the compensation towards funeral
expenses is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- by this Court. The Tribunal has also
erroneously failed to award any compensation towards loss of estate to the
appellants/claimants which they are legally entitled to in accordance with
Pranay Shethi judgment referred to supra. In accordance with the said
judgment, this Court awards a compensation of Rs15,000/- to the
appellants/claimants towards loss of estate.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the impugned award is enhanced from Rs.14,45,300/- to
Rs.26,15,600/- by this Court, in the following manner:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
Heads Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of pecuniary benefits 9,94,500/- 22,84,800/-
Loss of consortium 1,00,,000/- 40,000/-
Filial / Parental consortium 2,00,000/- 1,20,000/-
Medical expenses 1,30,800/- 1,30,800/-
Transport expenses 10,000/- 10,000/-
Funeral expenses 10,000/- 15,000/-
Loss of estate - 15,000/-
Total 14,45,300/- 26,15,600/-
Conclusion:
9. In the result, this appeal shall stand partly allowed. The Second
Respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount awarded
by this Court i.e. Rs.26,15,600/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs after
deducting the amount already deposited to the credit of MCOP.No.1869 of
2014 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer
the share of the first and fourth appellants to their bank accounts through
RTGS within a period of one week thereafter. Since the second and third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
Appellants are minors, their share of award amount shall be deposited
in any one of the Nationalised Banks, till they attain majority. The first
appellant who is the guardian of the minors/second and third Appellant is
permitted to withdraw the interest accrued once in six months. The requisite
Court fee, if any has to be paid by the Appellants before receiving the copy
of this Judgment. No costs.
29.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
To
1. The III Additional District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Salem.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
rgr
C.M.A.No.2504 of 2016
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
