Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs )Arockiamary on 30 September, 2021
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
and
CMP(MD)Nos.487 and 8239 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
Periamilaguparai,
Collector Office Road,
Trichy-620 001. ... Appellant
vs.
1)Arockiamary
2)Minor Luyisamary
Rep by her mother and natural guardian 1st respondent
3)Kuzhandhaitherasu
4)Arulappan ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the award passed in MCOP.No.226 of 2015 on the file of the
MACT (Sub Court), Kuzhithalai, dated 15.10.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
Challenging the award, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Sub Court, Kuzhithalai, in MCOP.No.226 of 2015, dated
15.10.2019, the transport corporation has filed this appeal.
2.In an accident which occurred on 13.05.2015, one Arockiadoss,
husband of the 1st respondent/claimant, father of the 2nd respondent/minor
daughter of the deceased and son of the respondents 3 and 4/parents of
the deceased, died. The claimants filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.226
of 2015, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court,
Kuzhithalai, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The appellant
transport corporation resisted the claim and filed counter affidavit,
disputing the manner of accident and the compensation claimed under
various heads. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced
on either side, the Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by the
appellant corporation and accordingly fixed the liability on the appellant
to pay compensation of Rs.21,42,800/- to the claimants with 7.5%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
interest per annum, from the date of claim petition till the date of
payment. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the appellant
corporation has come up with this appeal.
3.Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan, learned counsel for the appellant
would contend that fixation of notional monthly income of the deceased
at Rs.9,000/- for a Carpenter, is extremely on the higher side and without
any proof. He would further state that in order to prove the age of the
deceased, no document was marked by the claimants and therefore,
application of 17 multiplier, is not sustainable. Further, the award of Rs.
1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, is excessive. Thus, he would pray
for reduction on the quantum.
4.Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj, learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants would state that the Tribunal, considering the
entire evidence, has awarded a just and reasonable compensation and
there is no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the
Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
5.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as
the respondents and perused the records carefully.
6.Perusal of record shows that it is the case of the
respondents/claimants that the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of
accident and by working as a Carpenter, he earned Rs.25,000/- per
month. However, in the absence of proof, the Tribunal has notionally
fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. After adding
40% of income towards future prospects, as per the judgment reported in
2017 (2) TN MAC 609(SC), National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and others, deducting 1/4th of income towards the
personal expenses of the deceased and applying '17' multiplier, according
to the age of the deceased ie., '30', as per Ex.P2-Postmortem report, the
Tribunal has arrived at the loss of income at Rs.19,27,800/-. In the
judgment reported in 2019 (1) TN MAC 54 (DB), Andal vs. Avinav
Kannan, a Division Bench of this Court, evolving formula for
determining notional income, considering rise in inflation index, has
fixed Rs.11,000/-, as notional income, for the accident occurred therein
in 2014. In the present case, the accident is of the year 2015 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
therefore, fixation of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-,
cannot be said to be excessive. Placing reliance on Ex.P2-Postmortem
Report, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased at 30 years and
applied 17 multiplier, which cannot be found to be fault with, in view of
the decision of this Court in The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State
Transport Corporation, Madurai v. Mary [2005 (5) CTC 515],
wherein, this Court has held that in the absence of proof relating to the
age, such as birth extract or any supporting document, entry in the
Postmortem Report, can always be considered for the purpose of
computation of compensation.
7.The award of Rs.1,00,000/- granted to the 1st respondent/wife of
the deceased, for loss of consortium, also cannot be said to be excessive,
in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh v.
Rajbir Singh, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54, wherein, it has been held
as follows:
''In legal parlance, 'Consortium' is the right of the spouse
to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace,
affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-
pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and
protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be
compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary
damage for Loss of Consortium is one of the major heads of
award of compensation in other parts of the world more
particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc.
English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to
get compensation even during the period of temporary
disablement. By Loss of Consortium, the Courts have made an
attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort,
solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and
sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the
compensation awarded in other countries and other
jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately
compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to
award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the
view that it would only be just and reasonable that the Courts
award atleast Rupees one lakh for Loss of Consortium.”
8.Apart from the above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of love and affection to all the claimants, Rs.10,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation which
heads are not disputed by the appellant and therefore, the award under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
those heads are confirmed. We are of the view that the total
compensation of Rs.21,42,800/- with 7.5% interest, awarded to the legal
representatives of the deceased, cannot be said to be excessive or
bonanza warranting interference by this Court.
9.The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with
interest and costs, as awarded by the Tribunal, less the amount already
deposited, if any, to the credit of the claim petition, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the respondents 1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their
respective shares, with respective proportionate accrued interest and
costs, without filing formal permission petition before the Tribunal. The
share of the 2nd respondent/minor claimant, with interest and costs, shall
be deposited in a Nationalised Bank in Fixed Deposit, till he attains
majority. The interest accruing on such deposit, is permitted to be
withdrawn by the 1st respondent/mother of minor, once in three months,
directly from the bank.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
10.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[V.B.D.,J.] & [J.N.B.,J.]
30.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
bala
To
The Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court,
Kuzhithalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
and
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
CMA(MD)No.48 of 2021
DATED : 30.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
