Madras High Court
R.Raniammal vs P.Srinivasan on 25 January, 2022
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.15539 of 2016
1.R.Raniammal
2.R.Kalpana
3.R.Saravanan .. Appellants
Vs.
1.P.Srinivasan
(R1 remained exparte before Tribunal.
Hence, notice to R1 dispensed with)
2.New India Assurance Company Limited,
Officer Line,
Vellore N.A.A. District.
3.M/s. Alfa Creations Private Limited,
No.5, Patnool Sardar Jung Street,
Periamet,
Chennai – 600 003.
(R3 remained exparte before Tribunal.
Hence, notice to R3 dispensed with)
4.Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Katpadi Road,
Vellore,
N.A.A. District. .. Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
17.11.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.3622 of 2000 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
for Ms.M.Malar
For R2 : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For R4 : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraaghavan
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing”)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 17.11.2008 made in
M.C.O.P.No.3622 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.3622 of 2000 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court,
Chennai. They filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one P.Ramalingam, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
died in the accident that took place on 10.12.1995.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held both the driver of the van belonging to 1st respondent as well
as the driver of the mini lorry belonging to 3rd respondent are equally
responsible for the accident, awarded a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- as compensation
and directed the respondents 2 & 4 to deposit a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- each,
being 50% of the award amount as compensation to the appellants.
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that at
the time of accident, the deceased was a Electrician and Plumber, he was also
carrying on Trade and running Electrical Business, doing Regular Contractual
works for Kanchi Sankarachariar Mutt and also working for other Rice Mill
Owners in Kancheepuram and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month.
The appellants proved the avocation and income of the deceased by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
examining co-workers of the deceased as P.W.3 to P.W.5 and also by
producing Exs.P1 to P6, P13, P15 & P17. But, the Tribunal has fixed a
meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The
deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident whereas the Tribunal has
applied multiplier '13' as against the correct multiplier '14'. The Tribunal has
not granted any enhancement towards future prospects. The amounts awarded
by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to 1st appellant and loss of love
and affection to appellants 2 & 3 are meagre. The Tribunal has not awarded
any amount towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-New India
Assurance Company Limited contended that the accident has occurred only
due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the mini lorry belonging to
3rd respondent and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the van
belonging to 1st respondent and insured with 2nd respondent. The Tribunal
erroneously fixed negligence on the part of the driver of the van and directed
the 2nd respondent to pay 50% of the award amount as compensation to the
appellants. The appellants failed to prove the avocation and income of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
deceased by acceptable evidence. In the absence of any acceptable evidence,
a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the
deceased is not meagre. The Tribunal considering the entire materials on
record, has awarded a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- as compensation to the appellants
and the same is not meagre. The appellants have not made out any case for
enhancement and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-Oriental
Insurance Company Limited contended that the Tribunal erroneously fixed
50% negligence on the part of the driver of the mini lorry and directed the 4th
respondent to pay 50% of the compensation to the appellants when the
accident has occurred only due to negligence on the part of the driver of the
van belonging to 1st respondent and insured with 2nd respondent. In the
absence of any documentary evidence with regard to avocation and income,
the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income of the
deceased, applied multiplier '13' and awarded a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- as
compensation towards loss of dependency, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
consortium to 1st appellant, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and
Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection to appellants 2 & 3 and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
same are not meagre. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not
meagre. The appellants have not made out any case for enhancement of
compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel
appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the entire materials on record.
9.It is the case of the appellants that at the time of accident, the
deceased was a Electrician and Plumber, he was also carrying on Trade and
running Electrical Business, doing Regular Contractual works for Kanchi
Sankarachariar Mutt and also working for other Rice Mill Owners in
Kancheepuram and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. The
appellants proved the avocation and income of the deceased by examining
co-workers of the deceased as P.W.3 to P.W.5 and also by producing Exs.P1
to P6, P13, P15 & P17. P.W.3 to P.W.5 in their cross examination have
admitted that they are having records to prove the payment of Rs.35,000/-,
Rs.1,100/- and Rs.3,000/- to the deceased, but they have not produced the
said records before the Tribunal to prove the income of the deceased. Had the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
deceased been earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month, he would have paid
Income Tax. But, the appellants nowhere in the claim petition have claimed
that the deceased was an Income Tax assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal
considering the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 and entire materials placed
before it, fixed a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income of the
deceased. The accident is of the year 1995. The monthly income fixed by the
Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- is not meagre. The deceased was aged 45 years at the
time of accident and multiplier '13' applied by the Tribunal is not correct. As
per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1
SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & another] the correct multiplier applicable is '14'. The Tribunal
has not granted any enhancement towards future prospects. As per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC),
[National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others], the
appellants are entitled to 25% enhancement towards future prospects. Thus,
by granting 25% enhancement towards future prospects and applying
multiplier '14', the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of
dependency is modified to Rs.7,00,000/- {Rs.6,250/- [Rs.5,000/- + Rs.1,250/-
(25% of Rs.5,000/-)] X 12 X 14 X 2/3}. The amount awarded by the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
towards loss of consortium to 1st appellant is meagre and hence, the same is
enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amounts towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate. The appellants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the appellants 2 & 3
towards loss of love and affection. The appellants 2 & 3, being the children of
the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love
and affection. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation is
just and reasonable and hence, the same is hereby confirmed.
10.It is well settled that the Tribunal and the Courts have to award just
compensation. Though the claimant has claimed lesser compensation, the
Courts have power to grant just compensation more than the amount claimed
by the claimants. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of dependency 5,20,000/- 7,00,000/- Enhanced
2. Loss of consortium 20,000/- 40,000/- Enhanced
to 1st appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
3. Loss of love and
affection to 20,000/- 80,000/- Enhanced
appellants 2 & 3
4. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
5. Funeral expenses - 15,000/- Granted
6. Loss of estate - 15,000/- Granted
Total Rs.5,70,000/- Rs.8,60,000/- Enhanced by
Rs.2,90,000/-
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.5,70,000/- is hereby enhanced to
Rs.8,60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit, excluding the period between
20.10.2004 to 16.03.2006. The respondents 2 & 4 are directed to deposit a
sum of Rs.4,30,000/- each, being 50% of the award amount now determined
by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3622 of 2000 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai. On
such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective share
of the award amount now determined by this Court, as per the ratio of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary
applications before the Tribunal. It is made clear that the appellants are not
entitled to any interest for Rs.2,90,000/-, the amount now enhanced by this
Court as per the order of this Court dated 18.08.2016 made in C.M.P.No.7898
of 2016 in C.M.A.SR.No.94949 of 2015. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
25.01.2022
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Chief Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.1925 of 2016
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
