Madras High Court
Divya Kumari vs S.R.S. Travels on 21 June, 2022
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
1.Divya Kumari
2.Jeet Gupta (Minor)
3.Hasjit Gupta (Minor)
(Minor appellants 2 and 3 represented by
their mother, 1st appellant, next friend
and guardian)
4.Aruna Devi ... Appellants
Vs.
1.S.R.S. Travels
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr.K.T.Rajasekar, No.321/3, TSP Road
Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 002.
(1st respondent set exparte in lower Court
and hence, notice to the 1st respondent is
dispensed with)
2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited
No.140, Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai-34. ... Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2018 made
in M.C.O.P.No.8749 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.B.Siva Kollappan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.)
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 05.12.2018 made in
M.C.O.P.No.8749 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P.No.8749 of 2015 on the file
of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai. They
filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.4 Crores as compensation
for the death of one Indrajit Gupta, who died in the accident that took place
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
on 30.10.2015.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of bus belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 1st
respondent as well as the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company being insurer of
the said bus to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- 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 the
deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident, he was working as a
General Manager (Operations Costal Region) ISS SDB Global Company as
well as in private service and was earning a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per month.
To substantiate the same, the appellants have examined one Rajasekaran as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
P.W.2 and marked the documents as Ex.P6 to P8, P11 and P22 to P26. The
Tribunal without considering the same, fixed only a meagre sum of
Rs.60,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The appellants
have spent a sum of Rs.6,55,887/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.P19/
medical bills. The Tribunal failed to award the same towards medical
expenses. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are
meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company contended that the notional income fixed by
the Tribunal is not meagre. The Tribunal has not deducted any amount
towards income tax while arriving compensation towards loss of dependancy.
The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The appellants
have not made out any case for enhancement of compensation and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
7.Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and their name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for them either in person
or through counsel.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials available on record.
9.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of the
appellants that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a General
Manager in (Operations Costal Region) ISS SDB Security Services Private
Limited as well as in Shell India Markets Private Limited and was earning a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. To substantiate their contention, the
appellants have produced documents such as salary slips, appointment order,
educational qualification, PAN card, Form 16 and bank passbook as Exs.P6 to
P8, P11 to P18, P22 to P26 and P28 and examined one Rajasekaran as P.W.2.
At the time of accident, the deceased was working in ISS SDB Security
Services Private Limited. A perusal of Ex.P26/salary slip of the deceased for
the months of August and September 2015 reveals the gross salary of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
deceased is Rs.87,852/-. After deducting Rs.40/- towards death relief fund,
Rs.4,800/- towards Provident Fund, Rs.20.87 towards Provisional Tax and
Rs.6,653/- towards TDS, net salary was shown as Rs.76,338/- and the same
was credited in his bank account. The Tribunal without considering the said
document Ex.P26/salary slips, held that variable allowances and others to the
tune of Rs.26,000/- and probable IT has to be deducted from the net salary.
After holding so, the Tribunal erroneously fixed monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.60,000/-. There is no particulars about the allowances to the
tune of Rs.26,000/-. Unless the respondents proved that said allowance is only
for the benefit of the deceased and it is not for the benefit of entire family, the
same cannot be deducted from the gross salary of the deceased. The
appellants have produced bank pass book of the deceased and the same was
marked as Ex.P28, wherein a sum of Rs.76,338/- was credited. Considering
the salary mentioned in Ex.P26/salary slip and Ex.P28/bank pass book, the
monthly salary of the deceased is fixed as Rs.87,852/-. As per Ex.P17/PAN
card of the deceased, the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident
The Tribunal following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC (Sarla Verma and others vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another), has rightly granted 40%
enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier '15'. There are
four dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th
towards personal expenses. The Tribunal failed to deduct any amount towards
income tax. The accident has occurred on 30.10.2015. During the financial
year 2015-2016, upto Rs.2,50,000/-, there is nil tax. Thus, the calculation for
arriving annual income is as follows :-
Monthly salary of the deceased ... Rs.87,852.00
40% enhancement towards
future prospects ... Rs.35,140.80
------------------
Rs.1,22,992.80
------------------
Annual income (1,22,992.80 x 12) ... Rs.14,75,913.60
rounded off to
Rs.14,75,914/-
Income Tax Slab for financial year 2015-2016
Upto Rs.2,50,000/- - Nil
From Rs.2,50,001/- to Rs.5,00,000/- (10%)
[ Rs.2,50,000/- X 10%] - Rs.25,000.00
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- (20%)
[Rs.5,00,000/- X 20%) - Rs.1,00,000.00
Above Rs.10,00,000/- (30%)
[Rs.14,75,914/- (-) Rs.10,00,000/-
= Rs.4,75,914/- X 30%] -
Rs.1,42,774.20
---------------
Rs.2,67,774.20
---------------
Annual income after deducting income tax
(Rs.14,75,914/- – Rs.2,67,774.20) - Rs.12,08,139.80
rounded off to
Rs.12,08,140/-
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency
is modified to Rs.1,35,91,575/- (Rs.12,08,140/- X 15 X 3/4).
9(i). As far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that the Tribunal failed to grant any amount towards medical
expenses is concerned, from Ex.P19/medical bills of the deceased, it is seen
that appellants have filed only xerox copy of the medical bills. The Tribunal
considering Ex.P19, has rightly rejected the said document holding that the
appellants could have reimbursed the said amount from the employer of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
deceased or from the medical insurance and did not grant any compensation
towards medical expenses. The said reasoning of the Tribunal is valid and is
not interfered with.
9(ii). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards loss of
love and affection to the appellants 2 to 4, which is meagre. Considering the
the age of the appellants 2 and 3, who are 9 years and 4 years respectively at
the time of accident and the 4th appellant is the mother of the deceased, who
lost her son at the age of 62 years, they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each
towards loss of love and affection.
9(iii). The appellants are residing at Ayanavaram, Chennai. The
accident has occurred at Semmedu Sugar Mill on Gingee to Tiruvannamalai
Main Road. The appellants would have incurred some amount towards
transportation charges. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards transportation charges. Hence, this Court awards a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal
under all other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as
follows:
S.No Description Amount Amount awarded Award
awarded by by this Court confirmed or
Tribunal (Rs) enhanced or
(Rs) granted or
reduced
1. Loss of 1,13,40,000 1,35,91,575 Enhanced
dependency
2. Loss of estate 15,000 15,000 Confirmed
3. Funeral 15,000 15,000 Confirmed
expenses
4. Loss of 40,000 40,000 Confirmed
consortium to
the 1st appellant
5. Loss of love 90,000 1,20,000 Enhanced
and affection to
the appellants 2
to 4
6. Transportation - 10,000 Granted
Total 1,15,00,000 1,37,91,575 Enhanced by
Rs.22,91,575/-
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,15,00,000/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.1,37,91,575/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of petition till the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
date of deposit. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to
deposit 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. On such deposit,
the appellants 1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the
award amount now determined by this Court, as per the apportionment fixed
by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if
any, already withdrawn. The share of the minors/appellants 2 and 3 is directed
to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks till the minors attain
majority. The 1st appellant being the mother of the minor appellants 2 and 3 is
permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the
welfare of the minors. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary Court
fee on the enhanced award amount, if any. No costs.
(V.M.V., J) (S.S., J)
21.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
and
S.SOUNTHAR,J.
kj
To
1.The Chief Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court
Madras.
C.M.A.No.258 of 2022
21.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
