Madras High Court
M.Jamuna vs K.Indira on 11 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
1.M.Jamuna
2.Minor.M.Sathya
3.Minor.M.Janani
K.Singarammal (since died) .. Appellants
(Minor appellants 2 and 3 are represented
by their mother and next friend, M.Jamuna, 1st appellant herein)
Vs.
1.K.Indira
2.Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.66, 2nd Floor, City Centre Complex,
Thirumalai Pillai Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
17.03.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.1875 of 2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge – I, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.N.M.Muthurajan
For R2 : Mr.Dhakshinamoorthy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
JUDGMENT
(The case has been heard through video conference)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement
of compensation granted as per the award dated 17.03.2014 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1875 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special Sub Judge – I, Chennai.
2.The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1875 of 2010 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge – I,
Chennai. They filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.22,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one K.Mohan, who died
in the accident that took place on 07.05.2010.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent. It
directed the 2nd respondent, the insurer of the lorry to pay a sum of
Rs.11,50,000/- as compensation to the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
4.Not satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellants have come out with the present appeal.
5.Thiru.N.M.Muthurajan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/claimants submitted that the appellants herein, are the
claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The further
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased
K.Mohan was working as Turner cum Shift Supervisor in Laxmi
Industries, Chennai, and earning a sum of Rs.13,800/- per month. During
enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimants have produced witness
regarding the avocation and income of the deceased through P.W.2 and
P.W.3. He had marked Ex.P10/Authorisation letter from the owner of the
Laxmi Industries, Ex.P11/Bonafide certificate given to the deceased,
Ex.P-12/Copy of SSI Registration certificate of M/s.Lakshmi Industries,
Ex.P.13/Copy of IT Returns submitted by M/s.Lakshmi Industries. The
learned Tribunal considered the same and rejected the documents stating
that it is a letter pad document and it cannot be accepted in fixing the
income of the deceased Rs.7,000/- notionally and based on the same, the
pecuniary loss was calculated as Rs.5,250/- X 12 X 15. Considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma's case and
the same is on the lower side if notionally calculated the income could
have been on the higher side. But the income calculated is on the lower
side. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed this
appeal seeking enhancement.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Compnay submitted that the Tribunal had rightly fixed the notional
income and had arrived at a reasonable figure of Rs.11,500/- as just
compensation. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the
claimants that the documents furnished as proof of income on behalf of
the deceased was not accepted by the Tribunal is to be rejected as the
learned Tribunal had properly assessed the evidence. It is the further
contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that as proof of
income, the acquittance register maintained by the company which is
registered under the Industries Act and the voucher regarding payment of
salary and attendance register could have been furnished by the Manager
or the owner of the company and in the absence of the same, mere
certificate based on the same, the fact that the deceased was employed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
the company run by the Laxmi Industries may not at all be accepted.
Therefore, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. This
appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the
entire materials on record.
Point for consideration:
Whether appellants/claimants are entitled to enhancement?
8. The deceased died leaving his wife, mother and two minor
children. He was working as a Turner cum Shift Supervisor in Laxmi
Industries and he was paid a sum of Rs.13,800/- is found reasonable. At
the same time, the technicalities involved in marking the documents and
the same having been rejected by the Tribunal is found to be unfair since
in the year 2010, Rs.10,000/- or Rs.15,000/- by a worker in and around
Chennai is not an excessive amount. The learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants submitted that immediately after the accident, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
family had no wherewithal to pay Rs.40,000/- immediately. Therefore, he
had been earning sufficient amount in that circumstances not only that he
was employed for more than 28 years in the said company and those
from as a Turner by avocation and drawing the income. Therefore, the
Tribunal failed to appreciate the contention of the claimants who are the
wife, two minor daughters and mother of the deceased. Therefore, the
objections raised by the Insurance Company even though found
reasonable. The tribunal or the Appellate Court cannot go into the minor
technicalities regarding non production of attendance register and the
acquittance and payment slips regarding the payment of salary by the
company. There is proof that the company was registered under the
Industries Act and having Income Tax Assessment. Therefore, for his
employees it can pay Rs.34,800/-. But, still this Court does not take it for
Rs.13,800/- instead it is calculated as Rs.9,000/- per month and the loss
of income calculated accordingly. The deceased was aged 42 years at the
time of accident and the Tribunal has not granted any amout towards
future prospects of the deceased. The appellants are entitled to 25%
enhancement towards future prospects. The proper multiplier applicable
is '14' and the Tribunal erroneously adopted multiplier '15'. There are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
four dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal correctly deductd 1/4th
towards personal expenses of the deceased. In view of the above, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is
modified to Rs.14,17,500/- {Rs.9,000/- [Rs.9,000/- + Rs.2,250/- (25% of
Rs.9,000/-)] X 12 X 14 X ¾}.
9.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
consortium to the first appellant, which is excessive and the same is
reduced to Rs.40,000/-. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards
loss of love and affection to the appellants 2 to 4 is meagre and the same
is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards transportation, loss of estate and damage to clothing. The
appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation,
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,000/- towards damage to
clothing. The compensation granted under non-pecuniary heads are
hereby confirmed by this Court. Thus, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
S. Description Amount Amount Award
N awarded by awarded by confirmed or
o Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of 9,45,000/- 14,17,500/- Enhanced
dependency
2. Loss of 50,000/- 40,000/- Reduced
consortium
3. Loss of love and 1,20,000/- Enhanced
1,00,000/-
affection
4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
5. Medical bills 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed
Ex.P6
6. Transportation - 10,000/- Granted
7. Loss of estate - 15,000/- Granted
8. Damage to cloth - 1,000/- Granted
Total Rs.11,50,000/ Rs.16,58,500/- enhanced by
- rounded off Rs.5,09,000/-
Rs.16,59,000/-
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.11,50,000/- is
hereby enhanced to Rs.16,59,000/- together with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award
amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less
the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.1875 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special Sub Judge – I, Chennai. On such deposit, the 1st
appellant is permitted to withdraw her share of the enhanced award
amount now determined by this Court, as per the ratio of apportionment
fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less
the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications
before the Tribunal. The share of the minor appellants 2 and 3 is directed
to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the minor
appellants 2 and 3 attain majority. On such deposit, the first appellant
being the mother of the minor appellants 2 and 3 is permitted to
withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the
minor appellants 2 and 3. No costs.
gbi 11.03.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Special Sub Judge – I,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
gbi
C.M.A.No.2006 of 2014
11.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
