Madras High Court
R. Ramakrishnan vs Selvi on 29 October, 2021
C.M.A. No.2811 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A. No.2811 of 2014
R. Ramakrishnan ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Selvi
2. J. Kennady
3. M/s. Southern Refractory,
No.13/2, Main Road, Rajapalayanchavadi,
Needamangalam Taluk, Thiruvarur District.
4. National Insurance Company Limited,
No. 62, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam 612 001. ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against decree and judgment dated 20.10.2010
made in M.C.O.P. No. 410 of 2006 on the file of the MACT/ Additional
Sub Court at Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr. Lokesh for
Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
For Respondents : R1 - No Appearance
R2 & R3 Exparte
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
C.M.A. No.2811 of 2014
JUDGMENT
(This case was heard through Video Conferencing)
This Appeal has been filed by the father of the deceased
Vijayakumar who is the fourth respondent in the claim petition made in
M.C.O.P. No. 410 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Tiruppur.
2. Heard, Mr. Lokesh, learned counsel representing
Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms.R.Sree
Vidhya, learned counsel for the fourth respondent Insurance Company.
There is no representation on the side of the first respondent who is the
claimant in the claim petition. The respondents 2 & 3 have remained
exparte both before the Tribunal as well as this Court.
3. The Appellant as well as the first respondent are the parents of
the deceased Vijayakumar who died on 30.05.2005 as a result of an
accident caused by a vehicle insured with the fourth respondent. The
cause of the accident has not been disputed by the respondents. Before
the Tribunal, the first respondent, the mother of the deceased filed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2811 of 2014
claim in M.C.O.P. No. 410 of 2006 seeking compensation for the death
of her son Vijayakumar wherein the father of the deceased viz., the
Appellant herein was the fourth respondent.
4. Under the impugned award dated 20.10.2010, the Tribunal has
awarded a compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- together with interest and costs
to the first respondent/ claimant as detailed hereunder.
Heads Awarded by Tribunal
in Rs.
Loss of Dependency 1,80,000
(4,000 x 12 x 15 - ½)
Funeral Expenses 5,000
Loss of love and affection 10,000
Total 1,95,000
5. However the Tribunal has excluded the Appellant/ fourth
respondent who is the father of the deceased, since the claim was not
made by him. Aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Tribunal
in M.C.O.P. No. 410 of 2006, excluding the Appellant / fourth
respondent from getting any compensation, this Appeal has been filed by
him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2811 of 2014
6. The deceased was a Power table supervisor and in the claim
petition filed by the first respondent/ claimant, she has pleaded that the
deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of the accident.
However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.4,000/-. This Court in agreement with the said
assessment and accordingly, the same is confirmed by this Court. The
Tribunal has erroneously failed to award any compensation towards loss
of future prospects which the claimants are legally entitled to. After
giving due consideration to the age as well as the avocation of the
deceased, this Court awards 40% towards loss of future prospects which
is in accordance with the settled law. The Tribunal has also erroneously
adopted a wrong multiplier of 15 instead of adopting the correct
multiplier of 18 as the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of the
accident. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal
expenses, since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident
and the same is confirmed by this Court. Since the loss of future
prospects is awarded by this Court at 40% and the multiplier is corrected
by this Court to 18 instead of 15 erroneously adopted by the Tribunal, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2811 of 2014
loss of dependency is re-assessed by this Court at Rs.6,04,800/- instead
of Rs.3,60,000/- erroneously fixed by the Tribunal.
7. The Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation of
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. As per the settled law,
the parents are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.80,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and each entitled to Rs.40,000/-.
Therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of
love and affection to the parents is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.80,000/- by this Court.
8. The Tribunal has also awarded a lesser compensation towards
funeral expenses at Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- which ought to
have been awarded as per the settled law. Accordingly, this Court
enhances the compensation towards funeral expenses from Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.15,000/-.
9. The Tribunal has also erroneously failed to award any
compensation towards loss of estate which the claimants are legally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2811 of 2014
entitled to. Accordingly, this Court awards a compensation of
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
10. The Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation
towards transportation as it is a fatal accident claim and the same is
confirmed by this Court.
11. Since the Appellant/ fourth respondent and the first
respondent are the parents of the deceased Vijayakumar, both of them are
equally entitled to get the compensation assessed by this Court.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,95,000/- to Rs.7,14,800/- as detailed
hereunder.
Heads Awarded by Awarded by
Tribunal in Rs. This Court in
Rs.
Loss of Dependency (4,000 + 1,80,000 6,04,800
1,600 x ½ x 12 x 18)
Funeral Expenses 5,000 15,000
Loss of love and affection 10,000 80,000
Loss of estate Nil 15,000
Total 1,95,000 7,14,800
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2811 of 2014
13. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
total compensation from Rs.1,95,000/- to Rs.7,14,800/-. The fourth
respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
award amount, after deducting the amount already deposited if any,
together with interest from the date of claim till the date of deposit,
excluding the period of delay i.e., 1132 days in filing the appeal to the
credit of MCOP.No.410 of 2006 within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made,
the Tribunal shall transfer the amount lying to the credit of
MCOP.No.410 of 2006 to the bank account of the Appellant and the first
respondent in equal proportions within a period of one week thereafter.
No costs. The Appellant shall pay the requisite court fee, if any, before
obtaining the judgment copy.
29.10.2021
ab/nl
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2811 of 2014
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
ab
To
1. The Special Judge,
Special Court under TNPID Act,
Coimbatore
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.M.A. No.2811 of 2014
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
