Madras High Court
Santhi vs Gopinath on 11 January, 2022
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
1.Santhi
2.Minor Kowsalya
3.Minor Boopathy
4.Manickam
5.Bakkiyam @ Pappa ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Gopinath
2.Manager,
MAGMA HDI General Insurance,
Company Limited, V Floor,
No.140/150, Luz Church Road,
Mylapore, Chennai.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to enhance the award against the judgment and decree dated
01.12.2016 in MCOP Nos.549 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.A.Sathishkumar for
Mr.C.Thangaraju
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arunkumar (for R2)
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
Seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimants in MCOP No.549 of
2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate)
Namakkal, have preferred this appeal.
2.The facts of the case in nutshell:-
This is the case of fatal. On 03.06.2014, at 08.00 p.m, the deceased
Santhanam was travelling as pillion rider in a two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.28-
AQ-4665 on Salem-Karur National Highways. When the said two-wheeler was
nearing at Vallipuram Bridge, a TATA 207 van bearing Reg.No.TN-28-AE-5301
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased vehicle.
In the accident, he sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot. The first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the daughter and son and the claimants
4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. The first respondent is the owner and the
second respondent is the insurer of the offending van. Alleging that the accident
had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van,
the claimants laid a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/-.
3.The claim petition was resisted by the second respondent Insurance
Company contending that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the
rider of the two-wheeler and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation.
4.During the Trial, both parties have adduced oral and documentary
evidence. Upon consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal
came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the
driver of the Van and awarded compensation of Rs.14,64,000/- together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
S.No Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of love and affection 2,00,000/-
2 Loss of Consortium to the 1st claimant 25,000/-
3 Loss of future income 12,24,000/-
4 For transportation 5,000/-
5 For Funeral expenses 10,000/-
Total 14,64,000/-
Being dissatisfied with the award, the claimant is before this Court.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would contend
that since the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meager in all the heads, the
claimants are entitled for higher compensation. He would further contend that at
the time of accident, the deceased was 35 years and hale and healthy. He was the
only sole breadwinner of his family. He was working as a lorry cleaner and
earning Rs.12,000/- per month. But the Tribunal without considering the age of
the deceased fixed the monthly income at Rs.9000/-, which is meager. Further, no
amount has been added as future prospects. Hence, the appellants seek for
enhancement of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company submitted that the impugned award granting the aforesaid
compensation is well reasoned and it requires no interference and therefore, this
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7.We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on records.
8.In the case on hand, the accident had taken place in the year 2014. At
that time, the deceased was working as Cleaner. To prove his employment and
income, no separate document was produced. Hence, the Tribunal has fixed the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9000/-, which is a reasonable one. Further,
as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, no
amount has been added for future prospects. As per the decision of National
Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017(2)
TNMAC 609 (SC), the claimants are entitled to 40% addition as future prospects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
Hence, after adding 40% of the income and after deducting ¼th towards personal
and living expenses and by applying proper multiplier '16', the loss of dependency
works out at Rs.18,14,400/- (9000+3600(40%) = 12600 x 12 x 16 x 3/4).
Accordingly, the amount of Rs.12,24,000/- awarded under head of loss of future
income is modified as Rs.18,14,400/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for
funeral expenses; Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of consortium. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram and others
reported in 2018(1) TN MAC 452 (SC), the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-
each towards consortium and Filial consortium, which comes to Rs.2,00,000/-.
Further, this Court awards Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The amount of
Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is enhanced to
Rs.15,000/-. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of love
and affection, loss of consortium and transportation are set aside. The rate of
interest fixed by the Tribunal as 7.5% per annum is unaltered. Hence, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is re-quantified as
follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
S.No Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 18,14,400/-
(9000+3600(40%) = 12600 x 12 x 16 x 3/4)
2 Loss of Consortium 2,00,000/-
3 Funeral Expense 15,000/-
4 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Total 20,44,400/-
Rounded off 20,45,000/-
9.In such view of the matter, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
modified award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. On such deposit, the first appellant/wife of the deceased is entitled
for a sum of Rs.6,95,000; the appellants 2 and 3/children of the deceased are
entitled for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each; the 4 th appellant/father of the deceased is
entitled for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, the 5th appellant/mother of the deceased is
entitled to Rs.6,00,000/- together with proportionate interest and costs. The major
claimants are permitted to withdraw their share after filing a memo, along with a
copy of this order. Further, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
minor claimants in any one of the nationalised banks, as fixed deposit under the
Cumulative Deposit Scheme, till the minors attain the majority and the first
appellant/mother, who is the guardian of the minor claimants, is permitted to
withdraw interest once in six months directly from the Bank. No costs.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
11.01.2022
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.52 of 2021
11.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
