Madras High Court
Mookkayee vs P.Ambika on 28 February, 2022
C.M.A.No.3318 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.3318 of 2019
1. Mookkayee
2. Selvaraj
3. Sellammal
4. Mani
5. Malar ... Appellants
vs.
1. P.Ambika
2. The Divisional Manager,
M/s.The National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.33, K.R.T.Buildings,
Promenade Road,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 001 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 against the award and decree in M.C.O.P.No.231
of 2013 dated 05.07.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Principal District Judge, Perambalur.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Kamadevan
For Respondent 1 : Mr.E.C.Ramesh
For Respondent-2 : Ms.R.Sree Vidhya
JUDGMENT
The claimants are the appellants before this Court, seeking
enhancement of the award amount passed by the learned Principal District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3318 of 2019
Judge (MACT) at Perambalur dated 05.07.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.231 of
2013.
2. The claim petition has been filed seeking compensation for the
death of one Chinnappan, the husband of the first appellant and the father
of the appellants 2 to 5. The deceased was aged 60 years, who died in a
road traffic accident on 28.12.2012 involving a vehicle of the first
respondent, which has been insured with the second respondent. The
Tribunal had awarded the following sum as compensation:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Rs.5,000/- (+500 future
prospects)x12=Rs.66,000/-
Deductions – 1/4th Rs.66,000/- (-) Rs.16,500/- =
Rs.49,500/-
Applying multiplier 9 Rs.49,500 x 9 = Rs.4,45,500/-
Loss of Dependency Rs.4,45,500/-
Consortium (for wife Rs. 40,000/-
only)
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.5,15,500/-
Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3318 of 2019
3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
accident had taken place in the year 2012 and the notional income has been
fixed only at a sum of Rs.5,000/-, whereas the appellants should have been
given a sum of Rs. 6,500/-, as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 [ National Insurance Company
Ltd., -vs- Pranay Sethi and Others). He would further submit that no
amounts have been granted under the head of Filial Consortium for the
appellants 2 to 5, who are the children of the deceased.
4. Ms.R.Sree Vidhya, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-2/Insurance Company would submit that the appellants 2 to 5
are all aged 40 years and therefore, they are not entitled to Loss of
Consortium. She would further submit that the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess a valid licence and therefore, the Insurance
Company should have been given the right to recover the amount from the
first respondent/insured. However, this right has not been granted by the
Tribunal below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3318 of 2019
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the claimants is that
the notional income has to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.6,500/-, appears to
be in keeping with the above cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, this Court fixes the notional income as Rs.6,500/-.
6. Although the learned counsel for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the multiplier that has to
be adopted is "7", but, however, considering the fact that the age of
deceased is 60 years, the Tribunal below has rightly arrived at a multiplier
of "9". The appellants 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased, who have
been lost their father. Therefore, a sum of Rs.20,000/- each to the appellants
2 to 5 should be awarded to them under the head of Filial Consortium,
taking into account the fact that they are over 40 years of age. Therefore,
the re-worked compensation would be as follows.
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of Dependency Rs.5,26,500/-
Consortium (for wife Rs. 40,000/-
only)
Loss of Filial Rs. 80,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3318 of 2019
Heads Amount in Rs.
Consortium to the
appellants 2 to 5
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.6,76,500/-
7. Considering the fact that there is a violation of the policy
conditions, namely, the driver of the vehicle did not possess the valid
licence, the Insurance Company is granted the right to recover the said
amount from the first respondent/insured.
8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
by enhancing the Compensation from Rs.5,15,000/- to Rs.6,76,500/-. The
second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said
amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.231 of 2013 along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any
already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimants are
entitled to withdraw the same forthwith. The second respondent-Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3318 of 2019
Company can thereafter recover the amount paid to the claimant from the
first respondent. No Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount has
to be paid by the appellants. The proportion of allocation of shares adopted
by the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in
the present appeal.
28.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
srn
To
1. The Pincipal District Judge (MACT), Perambalur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3318 of 2019
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.A.No.3318 of 2019
28.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
