Madras High Court
P.Geetha vs K.Balaiah Naidu on 26 November, 2021
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
1.P.Geetha
2.P.Deenipriya @ P.Dhanusha
3.P.Mohaneesh @ P.Monish
Vendamma (died)
V.Mannar (died) .. Appellants
Vs.
1.K.Balaiah Naidu
(R1 was set exparte in the Trial Court.
Hence, notice to R1 dispensed with)
2.United India Insurance Company Limited,
Third Party Hubb, Sillingi Building, 4th Floor,
No.134, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
05.09.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.2706 of 2009 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I dealing with M.C.O.P.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
Cases, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Suryanarayanan
For R1 : Exparte
For R2 : Mrs.R.Rathnathara
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 05.09.2013 made in
M.C.O.P.No.2706 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court No.I dealing with M.C.O.P. Cases, Chennai.
2.The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.2706 of 2009 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I dealing
with M.C.O.P. Cases, Chennai. They filed the above said claim petition,
claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one
V.Padmanabhan, who died in the accident that took place on 06.03.2009.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
the driver of the bus belonging to 1st respondent and directed the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.13,34,000/- as
compensation to the appellants.
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the
deceased was working as Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Puttur and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal
without any basis, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,811/- per month
and the same is meagre. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income
of the deceased as per Ex.P9 / Salary Certificate & Ex.P10 / Salary Pay slips
for the month of January & February 2009. The deceased was aged 35 years
at the time of accident and the Tribunal ought to have granted 50%
enhancement towards future prospects. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal
under conventional heads are meagre and prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
6.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal considering entire materials
on record, has fixed a sum of Rs.7,811/- as monthly income of the deceased
and the same is not meagre. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards
loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are excessive and hence, the
appellants are not entitled to any enhancement towards future prospects. The
appellants have not made out any case for enhancement of compensation and
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials on record.
8.It is the case of the appellants that at the time of accident the
deceased was working as Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Puttur and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. To substantiate their
case, they produced the salary certificate and marked the same as Ex.P9.
From Ex.P9, it is seen that the salary of the deceased was Rs.11,302/- per
month. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has not disproved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
Ex.P9/salary certificate. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent – Insurance
Company that the deceased was not working in LIC. The Tribunal without
properly appreciating Ex.P9 and without giving any valid reason, fixed
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,811/- and Rs.9,000/- including future
prospects. The Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the monthly income
of the deceased at Rs.7,811/- and Rs.9,000/- including future prospects.
Therefore, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. Considering
Ex.P9 / salary certificate produced by the appellants, the income of the
deceased is fixed at Rs.11,300/- per month. As per Ex.P8 / Identity Card, the
deceased was aged 34 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has not
granted any enhancement towards future prospects. As per the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), [National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others], the appellants
are entitled to 50% enhancement towards future prospects. The correct
multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & another] is '16', but the Tribunal wrongly applied
multiplier '17'. There are three dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal
has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
by fixing a sum of Rs.11,300/- as monthly income, granting 50%
enhancement towards future prospects and applying multiplier '16', the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pecuniary loss is modified to
Rs.21,69,600/- {Rs.16,950/- [Rs.11,300/- + Rs.5,650/- (50% of
Rs.11,300/-)] X 12 X 16 X 2/3}. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards loss of estate. In view of the same, the amounts awarded by the
Tribunal under conventional heads are not interfered with.
9.It is well settled that the Tribunal and the Courts have to award just
compensation. Though the claimant has claimed lesser compensation, the
Courts have power to grant just compensation more than the amount claimed
by the claimants. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award
No by Tribunal by this Court confirmed or
(Rs) (Rs) enhanced or
granted
1. Pecuniary loss 12,24,000/- 21,69,600/- Enhanced
2. Loss of consortium 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed
to 1st appellant
3. Loss of love and 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed
affection
4. Funeral expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
Total Rs.13,34,000/- Rs.22,79,600/- Enhanced by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award
No by Tribunal by this Court confirmed or
(Rs) (Rs) enhanced or
granted
Rs.9,45,600/-
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.13,34,000/- is hereby enhanced
to Rs.22,79,600/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2 nd respondent-Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the 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 the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2706 of 2009 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I dealing with M.C.O.P.
Cases, Chennai. On such deposit, the appellants 1 to 3 are permitted to
withdraw their respective share of the 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 appellants are
directed to pay the necessary Court fee for the enhanced amount of
compensation. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
26.11.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
To
1.The Special Subordinate Judge No.I,
(Dealing with M.C.O.P. Cases),
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.366 of 2014
26.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
