Madras High Court
Shriram General Insurance ... vs P.Dhanalakshmi on 1 October, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.2613 of 2014 & 1825 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.Nos.2613 of 2014 & 1825 of 2016 &
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Shriram General Insurance company Limited,
No.66, Thirumullai Pillai Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
... Appellant in CMA.No.2613 of 2014 &
2nd respondent in CMA.No.1825 of 2016
Vs
1.P.Dhanalakshmi
2.K.Prabu
3.Udhayakumar @ Udhaya
... Respondents 1 to 3 in CMA.No.2613 of 2014 &
Appellants in CMA.No.1825 of 2016
4.A.Raja Mohammed
... 4th Respondent in CMA.No.2613 of 2014 &
1st Respondent in CMA.No.1825 of 2016
(4th respondent in CMA.No.2613 of
2014 & 1st Respondent in
CMA.No.1825 of 2016 remained
expearte before the Tribunal and
hence notice is dispensed with)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2613 of 2014 & 1825 of 2016
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree in
MCOP.No.858 of 2011 dated 18.04.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant in CMA.No.2613
of 2014 as well as 2nd
respondent in CMA.No.
1825 of 2016 : Mr.B.Murugavel
For Respondents 1 to 3
in CMA.No.2613 of 2014
as well as the Appellants
in CMA.No.1825 of 2016 : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
COMMON JUDGMENT
CMA.No.2613 of 2014 has been filed by the Insurance Company and
CMA.No.1825 of 2016 has been filed by the claimants challenging the very
same award dated 18.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, VIth Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MCOP.No.858 of 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2613 of 2014 & 1825 of 2016
2. Since both the appeals are arising out of the very same award, these
appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Heard Mr.B.Murugavel, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company and Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj, learned counsel for the claimants.
Since the owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal, notice
to him is dispensed with by this court.
4. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the Insurance
Company to pay the claimants a compensation of Rs.6,73,000/- together
with interest and costs as detailed hereunder:
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Pecuniary loss 6,48,000/-
(3000 x 12 x 18)
Funeral Expenses 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection 20,000/-
Total 6,73,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2613 of 2014 & 1825 of 2016
5. The cause of the accident has not been disputed by the insurance
company. The only issue that arises for consideration is that whether the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just compensation or
not.
6. In the claim petition, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased
Balamurugan was a owner cum driver of a tricylce and earning Rs.500/- per
day at the time of the accident. Since no documentary evidence was
produced by the claimants to prove the monthly income of the deceased, the
Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased on notional basis at
Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident happened in the year 2011. This Court is
of the considered view that the notional monthly income fixed by the
Tribunal for the deceased at Rs.6,000/- is low and it has to be enhanced to
Rs.7,000/-. Accordingly, this Court enhances the notional monthly income
of the deceased to Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.6,000/- erroneously fixed by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has erroneously failed to award any compensation
towards loss of future prospects of the claimants which they are legally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2613 of 2014 & 1825 of 2016
entitled to as per the decision of the Constitution Bench Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. Since
the deceased was 19 years at the time of the accident, this Court awards loss
of future prospects to the claimants at 40%. Since the deceased was a
bachelor at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50%
towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since the age of the deceased
was aged 19 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has rightly
adopted 18 multiplier for assessing the compensation towards pecuniary
loss to the claimants. Accordingly, the compensation towards pecuniary loss
is reassessed by this Court at Rs.10,58,400/- (7000 + 40% = 9800 – 50% =
4900 x 12 x 18) instead of Rs.6,48,000/- erroneously fixed by the Tribunal.
7. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various
other heads namely funeral expenses and loss of love and affection are
concerned, the same is confirmed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2613 of 2014 & 1825 of 2016
8. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.10,83,400/- from Rs.6,73,000/- in the following
manner:
Heads Amount awarded by Amount awarded by the
this Court Tribunal
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Pecuniary loss 6,48,000/- 10,58,400/-
(3000 x 12 x 18) (7000 + 40% = 9800 –
50% = 4900 x 12 x 18)
Funeral Expenses 5,000/- 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection 20,000/- 20,000/-
Total 6,73,000/- 10,83,400/-
9. In the result, the appeal CMA.No.2613 of 2014 filed by the
insurance company is dismissed as it does not deserve any merit and the
appeal CMA.No.1825 of 2016 filed by the claimants is partly allowed by
enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,48,000/- to Rs.10,83,400/-. The
Insurance Company who is the Appellant in CMA.No.2613 of 2014 is
directed to deposit the amount awarded by this Court, after deducting the
amount already deposited if any, together with interest from the date of
claim till the date of deposit to the credit of MCOP.No.858 of 2011 and
costs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2613 of 2014 & 1825 of 2016
judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the
respective share of award amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.858 of
2011 to the bank account of the claimants who are the Appellants in
CMA.No.1825 of 2016 through RTGS within a period of one week
thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
01.10.2021
nl
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To
1. The VI Small Causes Court, Chennai
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2613 of 2014 & 1825 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
C.M.A.Nos.2613 of 2014 & 1825 of 2016
01.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
