Madras High Court
B.Kamalakannan vs The Managing Director on 10 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.3115 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA.No.3115 of 2013
1.B.Kamalakannan
2.K.Sukumar
3.K.Sarala ... Appellants
..Vs..
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai -600002. ...Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the Judgment and decree dated 05.11.2012 made in
M.C.O.P.No.3350 of 2010 on the file of IV Judge, Court of Small Causes,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.A.Ravindran
For A.Shanmugaraj
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sivakumar
JUDGMENT
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated 05.11.2012 in
MCOP.No. 3350 of 2010 passed by the tribunal awarding compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3115 of 2013
of Rs.4,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the
claimant are before this Court for enhancement of compensation.
2. It is the case of the appellant herein that on 30.08.2009 at
about 9.50 a.m while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a
motor cycle bearing Reg.No. TN09-A5-9019 from south to north along
Jawaharlal Nehru Road, at that time the MTC bus bearing Reg.No. TN01-
4547 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner on the same
direction and dashed against the deceased. Thereby, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and died. The accident had occurred only
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the transport
corporation bus. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition,
claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death caused in the said
accident. The tribunal based on the evidence and documents, has
awarded a sum of Rs.4,56,000/- as compensation payable by the
Transport Corporation. Challenging the said compensation, the
claimants are before this Court for enhancement.
3. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses P.W.1 & P.W.2
were examined and nine documents Ex.P1 to P9 were marked. No
witness and documents were marked on the side of the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3115 of 2013
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
the tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.6000/- who was a tailor and embroidery designer by avocation. The
compensation under loss of income by taking monthly income at
Rs.4500/- is very less and the compensation under other heads viz., loss
of consortium and loss of love and affection are also very meagre. In
total the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.4,56,000/- against
the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- is very low and require to be enhanced.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/transport corporation submitted that the compensation
awarded by the tribunal is fair and reasonable and does not require any
interference by this Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Transport Corporation and
perused the materials available on record.
7. The main ground raised by the appellants is with regard to
fixing of monthly income. On perusal of records, it is seen that the
appellants have claimed that the deceased was a tailor and embroidery
designer and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. In order to prove
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3115 of 2013
the same, Ex.P9/Training Certificate issued by the National Council for
training in Vocational Trades was marked. PW2 on Mrs. Jayalakshmi was
examined and she had deposed that she gave tailoring work to the
deceased and paid for the same. Though, no documents were filed filed
by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased, considering Ex.P9
and the evidence of PW2, it would be proper to enhance the monthly
income fixed by the tribunal from 4,500/- and 5000/-. The tribunal has
rightly deducted 1/3 of the income towards personal and living expenses
and adopted multiplier 11 as per the age of the deceased who was 52
years at the time of the accident. But the tribunal failed to include
future prospects while calculating loss of income. As per the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma's case, if the
deceased is self employed and between the age group of 50 and 60
years, 10% of additional income to be added as future prospects.
Accordingly, the loss of income awarded by the tribunal is modified by
this Court at Rs.4,84,000/- (5000 + 500 (10%) x 1/3 x 12 x 11).
8. Likewise, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other
heads viz., Loss of Consortium for the husband is enhanced from
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- , Loss of Love and Affection to the children
is enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- (Rs.20,000/- each) and
Funeral expenses from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3115 of 2013
compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified as follows;
Heads Compensation Compensation
awarded by the modified by this
Tribunal Court
Rs. Rs.
Loss of Income 3,96,000/- 4,84,000/-
Loss of Consortium 20,000/- 30,000/-
to the husband/1st
claimant
Loss of Love and 30,000/- 40,000/-
Affection to the
children /2nd & 3rd
appellants
Funeral Expenses 10,000/- 15,000/-
Total 4,56,000/- 5,69,000/-
The compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified to the
aforesaid extent. Except the above modification, the award passed by
the tribunal is confirmed.
9. The respondent/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount of Rs.5,69,000/- as modified by this Court
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit, within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3115 of 2013
appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation as
modified by this Court as per the apportionment fixed by the tribunal
along interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any, already
withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal.
10. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the
aforesaid extent. No costs.
10.03.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
ak
To
1. The V Judge,
Court of Small Causes, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3115 of 2013
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
ak
CMA.No.3115 of 2013
10.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
