Madras High Court
Mahalakshimi vs Sangeetha on 1 April, 2022
CMA No.1914 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.M.A.No.1914 of 2018
1.Mahalakshimi
2.Sadhasivam ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Sangeetha
2.M/s.The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Kumbakonam. ... Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173
of M.V.Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 02.09.2015 in
M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Authority/Additional District Judge, Ariyalur.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Athikesavan
No.1
For Respondent : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
No.2
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1914 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The claimants in MCOP No.214 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Authority/Additional District Court, Ariyalur, are
the appellants herein. They are the parents of a young child viz., Dharani
aged 5 years at the time of accident, who unfortunately died in a Motor
Accident on 30.05.2013 at around 10.15 a.m. when she was standing on the
threshold of her house. At that time, an Eicher Medium Goods Vehicle
bearing registration No.TN 46 AC 8354 had dashed against the young child
and owing to the injuries caused, she died on the same day.
2.Claiming compensation for that unfortunately death, the parents had
filed the aforementioned MCOP No.214 of 2013 and aggrieved by the
compensation granted, they have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
before the this Court.
3.The second claimant/father of the child had examined himself as
PW1 and ten documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P10 including the copy of
the First Information Report, Post Mortum Report, the charge sheet, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1914 of 2018
death certificate and also the legal heirs certificate. On the side of the
respondent, three witnesses were examined as RW1 to RW3 and eight
documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R8. The insurance policy was marked
as Ex.P4.
4.The Tribunal took up for consideration as the first issue, the manner
in which, the accident occurred and whether it was owing to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was found as a fact
that the vehicle was actually driven in a rash and negligent manner and also
that, the deceased child was standing outside the threshold of her house and
at that time, the vehicle had hit her and caused her death. Therefore, that
particular issue was decided by holding that the accident occurred only due
to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. I would affirm that finding of
the trial Court.
5.Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation
payable. The Notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum was taken into
consideration since the age of the child was 5 years at the time of accident. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1914 of 2018
had been urged before the Tribunal that a sum of Rs.30,000/- per annum
should have been taken as notional income but the Tribunal thought it would
be more prudent to take a sum of Rs.15,000/-per annum.
6.The learned counsel for the appellants also urgeg this Court that this
Court should reconsider that particular notional income as determined by the
Tribunal.
7.However, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, the
issue of notional income for a child less than 10 years has been an oscillating
factor. If the child is 10 years and more than a more reasonable notional
income can be determined on the basis of the progress, which the child
would have made 5 years thence.
8.The entire aspect falls under the zone of discretion. While exercising
discretion, it is also expected that prudence is adopted. I therefore retain the
notional income at Rs.15,000/- as determined by the Tribunal. When that is
taken as the monthly income, then the annual income is (Rs.15,000/- x 12)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1914 of 2018
= 1,80,000/-. If multiplier 15 is adopted, the total income, which can be
granted by the Tribunal at Rs.2,25,000/-. The Tribunal had granted a
lumpsum for conventional heads without giving any reason. I would
therefore grant a sum of Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants/appellants
towards loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The
compensation is granted as follows under the following heads:
Loss of income ... Rs.2,25,000/-,
Loss of love and affection ... Rs.80,000/-,
(each of the claimants
Rs.40,000/- x 2 = 80,000)
Loss of estate ... Rs.15,000/-,
Funeral expenses ... Rs.15,000/-.
--------------------------
Total ... Rs.3,35,000/-
----------------------------
9.The enhanced compensation would therefore be Rs.60,000/- which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1914 of 2018
has to be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order along with interest 7.5% to be apportioned equally
between the two appellants and on such deposit, the claimants are permitted
to withdraw the same on proper identification. The Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
sms 01.04.2022
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Authority/
Additional District Judge, Ariyalur.
2.M/s.The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd., Kumbakonam.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J
sms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1914 of 2018
C.M.A.No.1914 of 2018
01.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
