Madras High Court
Doss vs Ravi on 6 September, 2022
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
1.Doss
2.Renugmbal
3.Venkatesan
4.Siva
5.Ramesh ... Appellants
Vs
1.Ravi
2.The Divisional Manager,
Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited,
No.145/131, Ground Floor,
Nelson Manickam Road,
Mehta Nagar, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.08.2010
made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.554 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : M/s.A.Subadra
For R1 : Ex-parte
For R2 : Mr.E.Rajadurai
for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
JUDGEMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, District Judge, Thiruvannamalai in M.C.O.P.No.554 of 2009, the
appellants are before this Court.
2. The facts in brief are as follows :-
The petitioners had filed the above claim petition seeking
compensation for the death of Kasiammal, wife of the first petitioner and
mother of the petitioners 2 to 5 herein in an accident on 24.08.2009. On the
said date, the said Kasiammal was walking near Rajendiran's land between
Vellakullam Colony and Kattumalainur. At that time, she was hit by the first
respondent's vehicle, namely a Yamaha Motorcycle bearing registration
No.TN-25-L-1784, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner. On account of the impact, she had sustained injuries and fracture all
over her body and was rushed to Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai for
first aid treatment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
3.They would submit that the accident had occurred only on account
of the negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's vehicle and the
deceased was aged about 50 years. It is the contention of the petitioners that
the deceased was earning money by working as an agricultural coolie and
maintaining cattle and goat. They had set out that she was earning a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was
sought for by the petitioners.
4.The first respondent had filed counter stating that the vehicle was
insured and therefore, the insurer was liable to pay the compensation. The
second respondent/Insurance Company had filed a counter disputing the
age, income and occupation of the deceased and stated that the amount of
compensation claimed was very high and not commensurate to the injuries
sustained by the deceased.
5.The Tribunal ultimately had held that the driver of the first
respondent vehicle was responsible for the accident as he is driving the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
in a rash and negligent manner and awarded the compensation of
Rs.3,17,000/-. The Tribunal while calculating the compensation under the
head of loss of earning had taken a sum of Rs.3,000/- as notional value and
after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses had adopted a multiplier of
6.Challenging the said award as inadequate, the appellants have
moved this Court.
7.M/s.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
submit that the Tribunal has adopted just a sum of Rs.3,000/- though the
appellants pleaded that the deceased earned a monthly income of Rs.5,000/.
She would further submit that the Tribunal has not taken note of the future
prospects and that apart, the Tribunal ought to have adopted a multiplier of
13 taking into account the fact that the deceased was aged about 50 years at
the time of accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
8.Further, she would submit that the Tribunal has erred in deducting
a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards personal expenses totally overlooking the fact
that there are five dependants.
9.On the other hand, Mr.E.Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal
below has passed a very reasonable award and that the same does not
require any re-consideration.
10.Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
11.The notional income adopted by the Tribunal below appears to be
very low. It is seen that the accident had taken place on 24.03.2009 and the
deceased is stated to be an agricultural coolie and also earning money
through her cattle and goat. The appellants have stated that her monthly
income was about Rs.5,000/- and there is no serious rebuttal to this claim.
The said amount can be adopted as the notional income.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
12.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants, no amount has been added towards future prospects.
Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would be a sum of
Rs.6,250/- after adding 25% towards future prospects. Out of this, 1/3 rd has
to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, a sum of Rs.4,167/- is
available for the family. The annual income of the family would therefore be
a sum of Rs.50,004/-. The appropriate multiplier is 13 and not 11 as held by
the Tribunal below. Therefore, the amount under the head of loss of
dependency stands enhanced to a sum of Rs.6,50,052/-.
Loss of Income Amount in Rs.
Notional income (Per month) 5,000
Add: Future Prospects (Rs.5,000 x 25%) (Per month) 1,250
6,250
Less: Personal expenses (1/3rd) (Rs.6,250/- x 1/3rd) 2,083
4,167
Notional income (Per annum) (Rs.4,167 x 12) 50,004
Loss of income (Rs.50,004 x 13) 6,50,052
Total 6,50,052
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
13.Therefore, the modified compensation payable to the appellants is
as follows:
Heads Awarded by Awarded by
the Tribunal this Court
(Amount in (Amount in
Rs.) Rs.)
Loss of earnings 2,64,000 6,50,052
(enhanced)
Loss of love and affection 50,000 50,000
Funeral Expenses 2,000 2,000
Total 3,17,000 7,03,052
14.The appeal is allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is modified,
enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,17,000/- to Rs.7,03,052/-.
The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said
amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.554 of 2009 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 appellants/claimants are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
permitted to withdraw the award amount falling to their share, along with
proportionate accrued interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less,
the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before
the Tribunal. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for
the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall
not disburse the enhanced amount till such time as the certified copy
showing proof of payment of Court fee has been produced by the
appellants/claimants. In other respects, the Award of the Tribunal is hereby
confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.
06.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
sp
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
P.T.ASHA, J.,
sp
C.M.A.No.1329 of 2017
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
