Palaniammal vs Kumarasamy
2021 Latest Caselaw 12642 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 12642 Mad
Judgement Date : 29 June, 2021

Madras High Court

Palaniammal vs Kumarasamy on 29 June, 2021

CMA No.337 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.06.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

CMA No.337 of 2016

Palaniammal ... Appellant
Versus

1. Kumarasamy

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office,
1st Floor,
MAJ Apartments,
149, Bharathiyar Road,
Namakkal. ... Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree in MCOP No.786 of 2012,
dated 09.02.2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

For Appellant : Mr.C. Paraneedharan
For Respondents : R1 - Exparte
Mr.S. Dhakshinamoorthy for R2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
CMA No.337 of 2016

JUDGMENT

(Heard Video Conference)

This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement

of compensation under the impugned award dated 09.02.2015 passed by

the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Principal District Judge, Namakkal

in MCOP No.786 of 2012.

2. The appellant / claimant unsatisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award has

preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement.

3. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under

the impugned award are as follows :

                                              Heads                Amount awarded
                                                                    by the Tribunal
                                                                         (Rs.)
                                   Loss of income                         3,12,000/-
                                   Rs.3,000 x 12 x 13 x 2/3
                                   Loss of love and affection               10,000/-
                                   Funeral expenses                          5,000/-
                                   Total                                  3,27,000/-




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

                                                                                 CMA No.337 of 2016

4. Heard Mr.C. Paraneedharan, learned counsel for the appellant /

claimant and Mr.S. Dhakshinamoorthy, learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent / Insurance Company. The first respondent remained ex-parte

both before the Tribunal and before this Court.

5. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award

before the Tribunal.

6. The appellant / claimant is the only legal heir of the deceased

Valliammal, who died as a result of an accident on 15.07.2012 caused by

a vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second

respondent. The appellant / claimant is the married daughter of the

deceased and she is the only Legal Representative and it is also not

disputed by the respondents before the Tribunal. The claimant in her

claim petition before the Tribunal has pleaded that the deceased

Valliammal was an Agriculturist earning Rs.10,000/- p.m., at the time of

the accident. However, the Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, which in the considered view of

this Court is too low. The Tribunal ought to have taken into

consideration the year of the accident which happened in the year 2012 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA No.337 of 2016

before assessing the notional monthly income of the deceased. If the

year of the accident was taken into consideration, this Court is of the

considered view that the notional monthly income for the deceased will

have to be fixed at Rs.7,000/-. Accordingly, this Court fixes the notional

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-. The Tribunal has also not

applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 16 SCC

680 and has not awarded loss of future prospects to the appellant /

claimant, which she is legally entitled to. The deceased was aged 52

years at the time of the accident, which has also not been disputed by the

respondents before the Tribunal. After giving due consideration to the

avocation and the age of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have

awarded compensation at the rate of 10% towards loss of future

prospects to the appellant / claimant, which it has failed to do so under

the impugned award. Accordingly, this Court awards a compensation of

10% towards loss of future prospects to the appellant / claimant. The

Tribunal has also erroneously adopted 13 multiplier instead of 11

multiplier as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 52

years. Accordingly, this Court adopts 11 multiplier for the purpose of

calculating the loss of income to the appellant / claimant. The Tribunal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA No.337 of 2016

has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased as

there is only one Legal Representative. Therefore, the compensation

towards loss of income payable to the appellant / claimant is

Rs.6,77,600/- instead of Rs.3,12,000/-, fixed by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the same is modified by this Court from Rs.3,12,000/- to

Rs.6,77,600/-, as detailed hereunder :

Rs.7,000/- + 10% = Rs.7,700 x 12 x 11 x 2/3 = Rs.6,77,600/-

7. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-

towards loss of love and affection, which is not in accordance with the

settled law (Pranay Sethi's case) and it has to be enhanced to 40,000/-.

Accordingly, the same is enhanced by this Court. Similarly, the Tribunal

has awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral

expenses, which is also not in accordance with the settled law and it has

to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- by this Court.

8. The Tribunal has also erroneously failed to award any

compensation towards loss of estate which the claimant is legally entitled

to as per Pranay Sethi's case and accordingly, this Court awards a

compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the said head. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA No.337 of 2016

11. For the foregoing reasons, the award of the Tribunal is hereby

enhanced in the following manner :

                                       Heads             Amount awarded Amount awarded
                                                          by the Tribunal by this Court
                                                               (Rs.)          (Rs.)
                           Loss of income                         3,12,000/-          6,77,600/-
                           *Rs.3,000 x 12 x 13 x 2/3                      *                   #
                           #Rs.7,000/- + 10% =
                           Rs.7,700 x 12 x 11 x 2/3

                           Loss of love and affection              10,000/-             40,000/-
                           Funeral expenses                          5,000/-            15,000/-
                           Loss of estate                                  -            15,000/-
                           Total                                  3,27,000/-          7,47,600/-

12. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant / claimant,

stands partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,27,000/-

to Rs.7,47,600/-, as indicated above. No costs.

13. The second respondent / Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the entire award amount as assessed by this Court together with

interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of

realization, less the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of

MCOP No.786 of 2012, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Principal District Judge, Namakkal, within a period of eight weeks from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA No.337 of 2016

the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being

made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the