Madras High Court
Sindhubhairavi vs Chandra Sekar on 25 February, 2022
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.6464 /2021
1.Sindhubhairavi
2.Minor Haritha Namali
3.Jeganathan
4.Mahalakshmi
5.Minor Thiliksha ...Appellants
(Appellants 2 & 5 are minors rep. by their
mother, next friend and natural guardian
Sindhubairavi, 1st appellant)
Vs.
1.Chandra Sekar
2.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.74-A, Salai Road,
Thillai Nagar,
Trichy - 620 018. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
PRAYER: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173(1)
of the Motor Vehicles Act praying this Court to set aside the judgment
and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1042 of 2017, dated 19.02.2021, on the
file of the Special District Court cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Trichirappalli.
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran - RR2
: No Appearance - RR1
JUDGMENT
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The claimants, who are the wife, children and parents of the
deceased Subburam, who died in a road accident that occurred on
08.08.2017 are on appeal, terming the compensation of Rs.21,29,800/-
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and Eight Hundred only)
awarded by the Tribunal, as meager.
2. The factum of accident and the question of negligence
need not be gone into, since the insurance company has accepted the
award.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
3. The claimants would contend that the deceased was
earning a sum of Rs.18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand and Five
Hundred only) per month. A certificate issued by the employer to that
effect was produced. The Tribunal disbelieved the certificate on the
ground that the supporting documents like bank passbook, etc., have not
been produced. The Tribunal took the notional monthly income at Rs.
9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only), added 40% towards future
prospects, after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses arrived at the
total loss of dependency at Rs.19,27,800/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs
Twenty Seven Thousand and Eight Hundred only). The Tribunal also
granted a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five
Thousand only) towards loss of consortium and love and affection for the
claimants, Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) towards transport,
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards funeral expenses and
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) towards loss of estate. Thus
the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.21,29,800/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs
Twenty Nine Thousand and Eight Hundred only).
4. Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants would vehemently contend that the rejection of proof of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
income by the Tribunal is improper and he would also point out that the
supporting document in the form of bank pass book has been sought to
be produced in the appeal in C.M.P.(MD) No.6464 /2021. Relying upon
certain entries in the bank passbook, the learned counsel for the
petitioner would contend that the income proof offered under Ex.C.2 and
Ex.C.3 should have been accepted by the Tribunal. He would also
contend that the Tribunal had erred in adding only 40% towards future
prospects and applying the multiplier of '17'.
5. Contending contra, Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned
counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that the
appointment order Ex.C.2 which is dated 10.03.2016, would show that
the consolidated salary of the deceased was only Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand only) and there is no supporting document to show that
the deceased was actually paid Rs.18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand
and Five Hundred only) as found in Ex.C.3. Therefore, according to
Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company, the Tribunal was justified in taking Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine
Thousand only) as notional income.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel on either side.
7. While, we agree with Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned
counsel appearing for the insurance company that proof offered by
Ex.C.3 may not be sufficient to fix the income as Rs.18,500/- (Rupees
Eighteen Thousand and Five Hundred only). We are unable to approve
the fixation of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) as notional
income by the Tribunal.
8. The deceased was an Engineering graduate in
Aeronautical Engineering. The accident had occurred in 2017. The pass
book that has been sought to be produced as additional evidence shows
that the deceased was paid something between Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand only) and Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand
only) during the previous months just prior to the accident. The salary
that is paid to the deceased differs from month to month. Therefore, we
do not think it would be safe to take the loss of income at Rs.18,500/-
(Rupees Eighteen Thousand and Five Hundred only) as evidenced by
Ex.C.2. Apart from the above, the appellants have not produced any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
other documents to prove the employment and receipt of salary. We have
to necessarily fix the notional income and proceed to determine the
compensation on the basis of the notional income.
9. Considering the fact that the deceased was an Engineering
graduate and the accident had occurred in 2017, we fix the notional
monthly income at Rs.17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand and Five
Hundred only). As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others,
reported in 2017 ACJ - 2700, 40% is to be added towards future
prospects. Therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.24,500/- (Rupees
Twenty Four Thousand and Five Hundred only). The deceased has got
wife and two daughters apart from parents to support, therefore, after
deducting 1/4th for personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss
of dependency would Rs.18,375/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Three
Hundred and Seventy Five only). The deceased was aged 27 years at the
time of accident. Therefore the multiplier would be 17. Thus, the total
dependency would be Rs.18,375 x 12 x 17 = Rs.37,48,500/- (Rupees
Thirty Seven Lakhs Fourty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred only). The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
award of the Tribunal on the other heads is confirmed. Therefore, the
total compensation would be Rs.39,50,500/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs
Fifty Thousand and Five Hundred only) rounded off to Rs.39,50,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand only).
10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified. The quantum of
compensation is enhanced from Rs.21,29,800/- to Rs.39,50,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). The wife / first
appellant would be entitled to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs
only) with proportionate accrued interest and entire costs awarded by the
Tribunal. The minor children, who are the claimant Nos. 2 and 5 would
each take Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only)
with proportionate accrued interest and the parents, who are claimant
Nos.3 and 4 would each take Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and
Twenty Five Thousand only) with proportionate accrued interest. The
share of the minor appellants 2 and 5 / claimant Nos. 2 and 5 shall be
deposited in any one of the nationalized Bank, in an interest bearing
fixed deposit, till they attain majority. The first appellant /mother and
guardian of the minor appellants 2 and 5 is permitted to withdraw the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
interest from the above said deposit, once in three months directly from
the Bank for the maintenance of the minors. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, less any amount already
deposited, along with 7.5% interest per annum within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. There shall be
no order as to costs in this appeal. C.M.P.(MD) No.6464 of 2021 is
dismissed as the document produced namely, the copy of the bank
passbook does not advance the case of the claimants.
[R.S.M.,J.] [N.S.K.,J.]
25.02.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
To
1.The Special District Court cum
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Trichirappalli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
rm
JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN
C.M.A(MD)No.709 of 2021
25.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
