Madras High Court
Nirmala Mary vs Muthusamy on 2 March, 2021
C.M.A.(MD).No.385 of 2020
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.385 of 2020
1. Nirmala Mary
2. Chellammal
3. Amaladass
4. John Pandian
5. Jerosin
... Appellants / Claimants
Vs.
1. Muthusamy
2. The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd,
No.2, Bhuvaneswari Complex,
Dr.Sankaran Road,Namakkal – 637 001.
...Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal and enhance the award
amount made in M.C.O.P.No.1439 of 2017 dated 10.02.2020 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/I-Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For Respondents : Mr. C.Jawahar Ravindran for R2
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/7
C.M.A.(MD).No.385 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The appellants/claimants have come forward with this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/I-Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, made in M.C.O.P.No.
1439 of 2017, dated 10.02.2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The learned counsel
for the first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The
deceased Paulpandi was aged 56 years at the time of accident and he
earned a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month by having milk animals and by
doing agriculture work. The 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd petitioner is
the daughter and the 3rd to 5th petitioners are the sons of the deceased. On
05.08.2017 the deceased was travelling the tractor bearing registration
No.TN 69 X 0747 from Thuckalay to his village loaded with grass
bundles. At about 10.30 p.m., when the tractor reaching near kovaneri on
Tirunelveli to Kanyakumari four way, a lorry bearing registration No.TN
60 Z 9838 belonging to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent
came from behind in a rash and negligent hit the tractor from behind,
despite the danger light was glowing on the back side of the trctor trailor.
As a result of which, the deceased was thrown away and sustained head
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD).No.385 of 2020
injuries and died on the spot itself. The claimants of the deceased filed
M.C.O.P.No.1439 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, claiming
a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation. The Tribunal upon
hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the records, awarded
a compensation of Rs.8,27,400/-.
3. Challenging the quantum of compensation in particular fixation
of monthly income of the deceased alone, the appellants/claimants have
filed this appeal for enhancement of monthly income of the deceased.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since
the deceased Paulpandi is the owner of the Tractor and was doing
Agriculture by using tractor and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
Whereas the learned Judge has taken Rs.8,000/- as monthly income and
therefore, would pray for enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD).No.385 of 2020
6. Admittedly, the Registration Certificate of the Tractor has been
produced and marked as E.P7. The deceased was engaged in Agriculture
work, earned Rs.25,000/- in his own fields. The accident was of the year
2017. Even for a vegetable vendor, the Apex Court in Syed Sadiq vs.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC
459(SC), has fixed Rs.6,500/- as monthly income where there was no
proof of income and in the present case on hand, on the date of accident
the age of the deceased was 56 years and he was doing agricultural work
by using his own tractor and definitely his income would be on the
higher side and therefore, it would be reasonable to fix the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs12,000/-. If monthly income is fixed at Rs.
12,000/-, after adding 10% future prospects and deducting 1/4th towards
the personal expenses of the deceased as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,
reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) and applying '9' multiplier, the loss
of income would be Rs.10,69,200/-.Except the above, the compensation
under others heads are not interfered with. Further as per the judgment
of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., the
total compensation is calculated as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD).No.385 of 2020
Loss of income = Rs.10,69,200 /-
Loss of Estate = Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Consortium = Rs. 40,000/-
Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000/-
-------------------------
Modified compensation = Rs. 11,39,200/-
(Less) Amount awarded by
the Tribunal = Rs. 8,27,400/-
--------------------------
Enhancement = Rs. 3,11,800/-
--------------------------
7. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.11,39,200/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of
deposit.
8. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount with 7.5% interest from the date of petition
till the date of deposit, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the
credit of M.C.O.P.No.1439 of 2017 within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares in the ratio
apportioned by the Tribunal with interest without filing formal
permission petition before the Tribunal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD).No.385 of 2020
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part.
No costs.
02.03.2021
pkn
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To,
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/I-Additional District Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD).No.385 of 2020
J.NISHA BANU,J.
pkn
C.M.A(MD)No.385 of 2020
02.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
