Madras High Court
M/S.Future General India ... vs Baby on 25 April, 2022
C.M.A(MD)No.348 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.348 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.2854 & 9208 of 2021
M/s.Future General India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Office Code-14,
1st, 2nd and 3rd Floor,
Plot No.55 (Old Plot No.27),
Vijaya Ragava Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. ... Appellant/Respondent-2
-vs-
1.Baby
2.Minor Shadhuryen
3.Minor Loheithyen
(Minor 2 & 3 respondents are rep. by
their natural guardian and N.F.,
1st Petitioner mother Baby)
4.Ramasamy (died)
5.Elangiyam (declared as legal heir of the deceased 4th respondent)
6.C.Shyam Sundar ... Respondents/Petitioners
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.348 of 2021
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set
aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 12.09.2019 made in MCOP No.1199 of
2016, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge)
Tiruchirappalli and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For R1,3 & 5 : Mr.J.Madhu
For R6 : Mr.S.Sankarapandian
JUDGMENT
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Challenge in this appeal is by the Insurance Company to the award of
Rs.29,80,799/- for the death of one Murugesan, who died in a Motor accident that
occurred on 01.09.2016.
2. We heard Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company, Mr.J.Madhu, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants, namely, respondents 1,3 & 5 and Mr.S.Sankarapandian, learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.348 of 2021
counsel appearing for the sixth respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle. It is
stated that the fourth respondent is no more and the legal heir is the fifth
respondent his wife. The factum of the death is recorded and the fifth respondent
is impleaded as legal heir of the deceased fourth respondent.
3. The only question that is addressed by Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned
counsel for the appellant, is that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the
future prospects after having fixed the notional income by adopting inflation
index following the judgment in Andal and 2 others vs. Avinav Kannan and
another reported in 2019 (1) TN MAC.
4. Contending contra, Mr.J.Madhu, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants would submit that the Cost Inflation Index and future prospects operate
in two different fields. While Cost Inflation Index is used to ascertain the income
of the deceased on the date of the accident with reasonable certainty, future
prospects is the method adopted by the Courts as per the judgment in National
Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 to
compensate for the loss of future earning of the deceased against of his/her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.348 of 2021
untimely death. We do not think that both are mutually exclusive. By adopting
cost inflation index the Courts ascertain the monthly income of the deceased at
the time of the accident. Even according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, future
prospects are to be added to the income of the deceased at the time of accident.
Therefore, there need not be any confusion about the applicability of the two
principles and both will have to be applied in a given case in order to ascertain
the compensation with reasonable certainity.
5. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has taken notional income of the
deceased at Rs.6,500/- which was fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year
2008 and by adopting cost inflation index, arrived at the income of the deceased
for the year 2016-2017. By this principle, the Tribunal has fixed the income of
the deceased on the date of accident at Rs.13,302/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal had
added future prospects on the basis of the age of the deceased as suggested by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. We see no difficulty in accepting the procedure
adopted by the Tribunal. As already pointed out, these two principles operate in
different fields and therefore, they are not mutually exclusive and the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.348 of 2021
cannot be said to be in error when it applied both principles to arrive at the loss of
dependency. Rs.2,60,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium which is
distributed as follows:- Loss of consortium for the wife Rs.40,000/-, parental
consortium for two minor children Rs.1,40,000/-, Filial consortium for the parents
Rs.80,000/-. We see that there is an excess amount of Rs.60,000/- has been
awarded by the Tribunal under this head since the Supreme Court has fixed the
loss of consortium payable at Rs.40,000/- in Manuram vs. Magma Insurance
Company. Though this contention of Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel
for the appellant, at the first blush, is very attractive, we find that the overall
compensation is just and reasonable. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards transportation and pain and suffering. It is seen that the accident had
occurred on 01.09.2016 and the deceased Murugesan succumbed to the injuries
on 04.09.2016 and he would have suffered pain and suffering during said period
which has not been taken into account by the Tribunal. Hence, the excess amount
of Rs.60,000/- granted under the head of consortium is apportioned as Rs.
20,000/- for transportation and Rs.40,000/- for pain and suffering. Subject to the
above modification, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.348 of 2021
6. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award
amount with accrued interest and costs within a period of eight weeks from today.
The compensation apportioned to the fourth respondent is directed to be paid over
to the fifth respondent, who is his legal heir.
Index : Yes [R.S.M.,J.] [N.S.K.,J.]
Internet : Yes 25.04.2022
am
To:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge to deal with MCOP Cases,
Trichirappalli.
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.348 of 2021
and
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
am
ORDER MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.348 of 2021
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
