Madras High Court
Trichy Office vs S.Lillymary on 2 March, 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.208 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A.(MD)No.208 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.1821 of 2021
The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
PPK Complex, First Floor,
South Main Road,
Pudukottai-622 001.
Trichy Office:
The Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
43,A/2, Prominent Salai,
Cantonment, Trichy-620 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Lillymary
2.M.Selvaraj
3.S.Daisy Gracy
4.S.Leemarose
5.S.Bhoologanathan
6.V.Leelavathy ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to modify the decree and judgment dated
13.09.2019 made in MCOP.No.1713 of 2015 on the file of the
Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Ilango
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.208 of 2021
For R1 to R4 : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
JUDGMENT
The above appeal has been filed questioning the quantum of
compensation.
2.The only contention made by the learned counsel for the
appellant that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2009(2) TANMAC 1 SC in the case of Sarla Verma
Vs. The Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd, the Tribunal ought to
have deducted 50% of the monthly income of the deceased towards
his personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor at the time
of accident.
3.The learned counsel for the respondents 1to 4/claimants
would state that considering the oral and documentary evidence
submitted by the claimants, the Tribunal has awarded just and
reasonable compensation which does not warrant interference by
this Court.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
claimants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.208 of 2021
5.Perusal of record shows that the claimants claimed that the
deceased was aged 29 years at the time of accident and by working
as Civil Engineer in CKN Construction, Trichy, he earned
Rs.30,000/- per month. In the absence of proof, the Tribunal has
fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.12,000/-. After adding 40%
of the income towards future prospects as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC
609 (SC) and by applying '17' multiplier as per the Sarla
Verma's case, according to the age of the deceased the Tribunal
has arrived at Rs.25,70,400/-. The Tribunal has deducted 1/4th of
the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as per
the judgment of the Sarla Verma's case, since dependents are four
in number.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant would state that the
Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/4th towards the personal
expenses instead of 50%, since the deceased was a bachelor at the
time of accident. The said contention in my opinion deserves
acceptance for the reason that the deceased was a bachelor and
the third and fourth respondents are aged about 30 years and
26 years respectively and it can be presumed that they are married
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.208 of 2021
sisters. Accordingly, if 50% is deducted towards the personal
expenses of the deceased, then, the monthly income would be
Rs.8,400/-.
7.After applying '17' multiplier, as per Sarla Verma's case,
loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.17,13,600/-. Accordingly, the
award under head loss of dependency is modified at Rs.17,13,600/-
as against Rs.25,70,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Except the
above modification, the award under other heads, which are not
disputed, are not interfered with.
8.The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
modified compensation of Rs.20,08,600/- with 7.5% interest from
the date of petition till the date of deposit and costs, less the
amount already deposited if any, to the credit of the claim petition,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4/claimants
are permitted to withdraw the modified compensation in the ratio
as apportioned by the Tribunal, without filing formal permission
petition before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.208 of 2021
9.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly partly
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Gns/pm
02.03.2021
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Special District Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD)No.208 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
gns/pm
C.M.A.(MD)No.208 of 2021
02.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
