Madras High Court
S.Seethalakshmi vs B.Jeevanandham on 22 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
and
CMP.No.3053 of 2022
1.S.Seethalakshmi
2.S.Ezhilvathani
3.S.Srimathi
4.Minor S.Sripriya
5.Minor S.Priyadharshini
6.Minor Abitha
7.Minor S.Abinaya
(All minors are represented by Natural Guardian,
Mother 1st petitioner herein)
8.Janaga ... Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
1.B.Jeevanandham
2.The Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,
Building No.142, I Floor, ECR Main Road, Near Latha Steel House,
Kottupalayam, Puducherry – 605 008.
...Respondents/Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
PRAYER:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
20.10.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.1995 of 2019, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore.
For Appellants : M/s.Ramya V.Rao
For Respondents :Mr.B.Siva Kollappar for R2
Not ready in Notice for R1
JUDGMENT
The claimants, are the appellants herein. The first appellant is the
wife and the appellants 2 to 7 are the children of the deceased Sakthivel and
the 8th appellant is the mother of the deceased.
2. The appellants had filed M.C.O.P.No.1995 of 2019 before the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District and Sessions Judge),
Cuddalore, claiming compensation for the death of the said Sakthivel in a
road accident on 14.06.2019. At the time of the accident, the deceased is
stated to be aged about 40 years and is said to be a groundnut merchant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
earning a monthly income of Rs.75,000/-. It is the case of the appellants
that on 14.06.2019 at about 00.15 hours, when the deceased was travelling
as the owner of the goods in the vehicle belonging to the first respondent
with a load of groundnut, the vehicle which was driven in a great speed
rashly and negligently hit the vehicle proceeding in front, as a result, the
deceased had fallen off the vehicle and the rear wheel had ran over him
causing his death.
3. Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the appellants being
the wife, children and mother of the deceased, claimed compensation of
Rs.75,00,000/-. The first respondent had remained ex-parte and the second
respondent had filed a counter, challenging the claim, their liability to
compensate the appellants and also contending that the deceased has
contributed to his death by travelling in a vehicle loaded with goods.
4. The Tribunal below after hearing the arguments of the parties and
considering the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.17,95,500/-. While
awarding compensation, the tribunal had taken the notional income of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month, to which 25% was added towards
future prospects and since the age of the appellant was 40 years, multiplier
of 14 was adopted and 1/5th of the amount was deducted towards the
personal expenses of the deceased.
5. Aggrieved by this award, the appellants are before this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the
tribunal has not considered the fact that the accident took place in the year
2019 and a notional income of Rs.14,000/- ought to have been adopted
instead of a sum of Rs.10,000/-; that apart, the children and the mother of
the deceased were entitled to consortium of 44% (each) for the death of the
deceased.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the
judgment 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 – National Insurance Company Vs.
Pranay Sethi & others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated
the amount under the conventional heads like loss of estate, loss of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
consortium, funeral expenses has to be mandatorily granted and once
in three years, the same has to be enhanced by 10% and therefore she
would contend that the amounts under the head of loss of consortium,
loss of filial consortium, transportation, funeral expenses are
necessarily be enhanced and compensated accordingly.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that there is no question of granting any compensation for the
petitioners 2 to 8 and this fact has been clearly set out in the judgment
in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 – National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay
Sethi & others, wherein, the Constitutional Bench has held that the
compensation under the head of filial consortium to mother and minor
children does not exist”.
9. The learned Judges were extracting the observations of
the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and others Vs.Rajbir Singh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
and others reported in 2013 (9) SCC page 54. Therefore, he would
submit that no amount under these heads can be granted.
10. To this point, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants
would submit that in the judgment reported in Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9581 of 2018 in Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and
others, the two members Bench of the Supreme Court after
considering the judgment in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 – National
Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & others had observed as
follows:
8.7. A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads
under which compensation is to be awarded in a
death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a
compendious term which encompasses 'spousal
consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial
consortium'.
The right to consortium would include
the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace
and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
family. With respect to a spouse, it would include
sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined
as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-
wife which allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation,
affection and aid of the other in every conjugal
relation”.
Parental consortium is granted to the
child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss
of “parental aid, protection, affection, society,
discipline, guidance and training.”
Filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of an accidental
death of a child. An accident leading to the death of
a child causes great shock and agony to the parents
and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection,
companionship and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting
changing norms about the status and worth of actual
relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have
recognized that the value of the compensation
awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death
of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial
legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or
their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case
where a parent has lost their minor child, or
unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled
to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of
Filial consortium.
Parental consortium is awarded to
children who lose their parents in motor vehicle
accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded
compensation on this count. However, there was no
clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial
Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be
awarded as consortium will be governed by the
principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of
Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it
appropriate to award the father and the sister of the
deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of
Filial Consortium”.
11. Therefore, she would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
made it clear that the children and parents of the deceased are also entitled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
to consortium and this cannot be taken away. Further in keeping with the
judgment of 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 – National Insurance Company
Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, they have to be awarded filial
consortium.
12. Heard both sides counsel.
13. Considering the extensive arguments and also taking in
to account the judgment under 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 – National
Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & others and Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9581 of 2018 in Magma
General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru
Ram and others, the following order is passed.
14. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the
year 2019, this Court fixes the notional income of the deceased as
Rs.14,000/- which is just and proper and if we add 25% towards
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would be
notionally fixed at Rs.17,500/-. After deducting 1/5th of the said
amount towards his personal expenses, the monthly contribution to the
family would be a sum of Rs.14,000/-. The deceased is aged about 40
years and therefore, the multiplier of 14 is appropriate. Consequently,
the pecuniary loss would stand enhanced to a sum of Rs.23,52,000/-.
The enhanced amount awarded by this Court under various heads are
tabulated below:
Loss of income Rs.23,52,000/-
Loss of Consortium to the wife Rs.44,000/-
Loss of filial Consortium Rs.44,000/*7=
Rs.3,08,000
Loss of funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-
Loss of transportation Rs.16,500/-
Total Rs.27,37,000/-
15. In fine,
● the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
● The compensation of Rs.17,95,500/- awarded by the tribunal is
enhanced by this Court to Rs.27,37,000/- along with interest at the
7.5% per annum as awarded by this Court.
● The enhanced amount of compensation awarded by this Court shall
be apportioned amongst the claimants in the same ratio as ordered by
the Tribunal.
● The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount awarded by this Court along with interest at
7.5% per annum, less the amount, if any, already deposited, to the
credit of MCOP.No.1995 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
● On such deposit, the claimants 1 to 3 and 8 are permitted to
withdraw the award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if
any, together with proportionate interest and costs.
● Insofar as the claimants 4 to 7/minors are concerned, their shares
shall be deposited by the Tribunal in any Fixed Deposit Scheme in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
any one of the Nationalised Banks and it shall be renewed
periodically till they attain majority and the interest accrued thereon
shall be withdrawn by the first claimant/mother once in three months.
No costs.
● The claimants shall pay the Court fee for the enhanced amount. It is
made well clear that until the proof of the payment of the Court
Fee is produced by the claimants before the trial Court, with
reference to the enhanced amount, no amount shall be disbursed
by the Tribunal below. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
ub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
I Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
P.T. ASHA, J,
ub
C.M.A.No.8 of 2022
and
CM.P.No.24205 of 2019
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
