Madras High Court
Padmavathi vs Metropolitan Transport ... on 30 June, 2021
CMA No.1863 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CMA No.1863 of 2016
1. Padmavathi
2. J.Rajkumar
3. J.Vinothini (minor)
Represented by her mother &
Next Friend 1st petitioner / appellant ... Appellants
Versus
Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Chennai Division Ltd.,
Represented by its
Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2016
MACTOP No.7164 of 2013 on the file of the III Small Causes Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.R. Kalaiarasan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Moorthy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/12
CMA No.1863 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Heard Video Conference)
This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement
of compensation under the impugned award dated 24.03.2016 passed by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai,
in MCOP No.7164 of 2013.
2. The appellants / claimants unsatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award have
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.)
Pecuniary loss 10,81,548
Rs.8,000 + 30% - 1/3rd x 12 x
Loss of consortium to the 1st 1,00,000/-
petitioner
Loss of love and affection to 1,50,000/-
petitioners 2 and 3
(Rs.75,000/- x 2)
Funeral expenses 25,000/-
Total 13,56,548/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1863 of 2016
4. Heard Mr.R. Kalaiarasan, learned counsel for the appellants/
claimants and Mr.K.Moorthy, learned counsel for the sole respondent /
Transport Corporation.
5. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award
before the Tribunal.
6. The deceased V. Jayachandran was aged 50 years and was an
Assistant Sales Manager in a private concern viz., M/s. Yagava
Enterprises looking after their Zones in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu
States. In the claim petition, the appellants / claimants, who are his
dependants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m.,
at the time of the accident.
7. Before the Tribunal, the appellants / claimants have filed six
documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and three witnesses
were examined on their side viz, the first appellant / first claimant herself
as PW1, an eyewitness to the accident viz., R. Krishnamurthy as PW2
and the employer of the deceased viz., M.Rajalakshmi as PW3. On the
side of the respondent / Transport Corporation, one witness was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1863 of 2016
examined viz., M.Premkumar, the Driver of the Bus as RW1. However,
no documents were filed by them before the Tribunal.
8. PW3, M.Rajalakshmi, who claims to be an employer of the
deceased has deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning
Rs.15,000/-p.m., as per the salary certificate, which was marked as
Ex.P6.
9. The learned counsel for the second respondent / Transport
Corporation would submit that even though during the cross
examination of PW3, she has deposed that attendance register and salary
register are very much available but however, she would submit that the
same has not been produced by PW3 or by the appellants / claimants
before the Tribunal. Hence, she would contend that the monthly income
fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/- for an accident that happened in the
year 2013 is a correct assessment and does not require any interference
by this Court.
10. However, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
would submit that the appellants / claimants have examined the employer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1863 of 2016
of the deceased (PW3) and she has deposed that the deceased was
working as a Assistant Sales Manager and the monthly income disclosed
in the salary certificate Ex.P6 as Rs.15,000/- is correct. Further, he
would submit that no contra evidence has been produced by the sole
respondent / Transport Corporation before the Tribunal to disprove the
contentions of the appellants / claimants that the deceased was earning
Rs.15,000/-p.m., at the time of the accident.
11. The accident happened in the year 2013. As seen from the
evidence available on record, the sole respondent / Transport Corporation
has not disputed the avocation of the deceased, who was an Assistant
Sales Manager at M/s. Yagava Enterprises, having its office at Old. No.9,
New No.11, Noore Veerasamy Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600
034. The salary certificate of the deceased was also marked as Ex.P6
which has been issued in the letter head of M/s.Yagava Enterprises. The
alleged employer of the deceased by name Rajalakshmi has also been
examined as a witness viz., PW3 before the Tribunal, who has deposed
that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m., at the time of the
accident. But excepting for producing the salary certificate, other
supporting documents like attendance register, salary register and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1863 of 2016
appointment letter, etc. have not been filed by the appellants / claimants
before the Tribunal. When the respondent / Transport Corporation has
disputed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., at the time of
the accident, the appellants / claimants ought to have produced the
aforementioned documents in addition to the salary certificate to
substantiate their case that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m., at
the time of the accident. Therefore, the salary certificate (Ex.P6) which
discloses that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m. cannot be
entirely believed. However, it is also not right on the part of the learned
counsel for the respondent / Transport Corporation to contend that the
assessment of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- is a
correct assessment. A person employed as an Assistant Sales Manager
looking after Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu Zones in a private concern
would have definitely earned a higher monthly income than what was
assessed by the Tribunal under the impugned award. This Court though
not having accepted the salary certificate (Ex.P6) in entirety is of the
considered view that the deceased V. Jayachandran, who was aged 50
years and was employed as a Assistant Sales Manager looking after
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu Zones in a private concern would have
earned a minimum of Rs.13,000/- p.m. Accordingly, this Court fixes the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1863 of 2016
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/-
fixed by the Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal has erroneously awarded a higher compensation
towards loss of future prospects to the appellants / claimants. The
deceased was aged 50 years at the time of the accident. Hence, this
Court is of the considered view that 25% towards loss of future prospects
will be an adequate compensation to the appellants / claimants.
Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of future prospects is
reduced to 25% instead of 30%, awarded by the Tribunal.
13. However, the Tribunal has adopted the correct multiplier of a
person aged 50 years as 13. The appellants / claimants, who are the wife,
son and the minor daughter of the deceased and therefore, 1/3 rd will have
to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, which the
Tribunal has also rightly done so under the impugned award.
Accordingly, the pecuniary loss will have to be enhanced by this Court
from Rs.10,81,548/- to Rs.16,89,948/- as detailed hereunder :
Rs.13,000/- + 25% = Rs.16,250/- Less 1/3rd
x 12 x 13 = Rs.16,89,948/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1863 of 2016
14. The Tribunal has also awarded a higher compensation towards
loss of consortium at Rs.1,00,000/- and towards loss of love and
affection at Rs.1,50,000/- which has to be reduced in accordance with the
settled law as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & others
reported in 2017 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, this Court reduces the
compensation towards loss of consortium to Rs.40,000/- and towards loss
of love and affection only to the son and daughter of the deceased at
Rs.40,000/- each totally amounting to Rs.80,000/-, instead of
Rs.1,50,000/- fixed by the Tribunal.
15. The Tribunal has also awarded a higher compensation of
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses which has to be reduced to
Rs.15,000/- in accordance with the settled law as laid down in the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi's, as
stated supra.
15. The Tribunal has also failed to award any compensation
towards loss of estate to the appellants / claimants, which they are
legally entitled to. After giving due consideration to the same, this Court
awards a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1863 of 2016
16. 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.)
Pecuniary loss 10,81,548/- 16,89,948/-
*Rs.8,000 + 30% - 1/3rd x * #
12 x 13
# Rs.13,000 x 25% - 1/3rd x
12 x 13
Loss of consortium to the 1st 1,00,000/- 40,000/-
petitioner
Loss of love and affection to 1,50,000/- 80,000/-
petitioners 2 and 3 ** ##
**(Rs.75,000/- x 2)
## Rs.40,000/- x 2
Funeral expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-
Loss of estate - 15,000/-
Total 13,56,548/- 18,39,948/-
Rounded off 13,56,548/- 18,40,000/-
17. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants / claimants,
stands partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from
Rs.13,56,548/- to Rs.18,40,000/-, as indicated above. No costs.
18. The sole respondent / Transport Corporation 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1863 of 2016
MACTOP No.7164 of 2013 on the file of the III Small Causes Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, within a period of eight
weeks from 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 bank account of the major appellants / major claimants, as
per the same ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal through RTGS,
within a period of two weeks thereafter. Insofar as the share of the third
appellant / minor claimant is concerned, the same shall be deposited in
Fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till she attains the
age of majority and the interest accrued thereon shall be withdrawn by
the guardian of the minor claimant once in three months, directly from
the Bank. If the third appellant / minor claimant has attained the age of
majority, it is open to her to file formal petition before the Tribunal to get
her share of apportionment. Necessary Court fee, if any has to be paid by
the appellants/ claimants before receiving the copy of this Judgment.
30.06.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1863 of 2016
To
1. The III Judge,
III Small Causes Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1863 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
CMA No.1863 of 2016
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
