Madras High Court
Renuka vs Srinivasaiah on 6 September, 2022
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A. No.2098 of 2021
1.Renuka
2.Minor Rubasri
3.Minor Dharshini
(Minors rep. By their natural guardian/
next friend, mother/1st appellant)
4.D.Vasantha .. Appellants
Vs.
1.Srinivasaiah
(No relief sought against the 1st respondent.
Hence, notice may be dispensed with)
2.The Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Having Office at, C.S.I. Complex,
No.1, Officer Line,
Vellore – 1. .. Respondents
_____
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2021, made
in M.C.O.P. No.996 of 2016, on the file of the Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast
Track Mahila Court) (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Vellore.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Sivakumar
For R2 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.]
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants-
claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal
in the award dated 12.03.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.996 of 2016, on the file
of the Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) (Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal), Vellore.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
2.The appellants/claimants filed M.C.O.P. No.996 of 2016, on the file
of the Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) (Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal), Vellore, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation
for the death of one Balaji who died in the accident that took place on
01.11.2016.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the Car owned by the 1st respondent and directed the
2nd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.15,67,584/- 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.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that at
the time of accident, the deceased Balaji was doing Textile Business and was
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. They have filed Ex.P8 – Income Tax
Returns to show that the annual income of the deceased Balaji was
Rs.3,38,318/-. The respondents have not filed any document to disprove the
said document filed by the claimants. The Tribunal without considering the
same, has erroneously fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as
notional income and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. The
Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of estate. The amounts
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to the 1st appellant and
loss of love and affection to the appellants 2 to 4 are meagre and prayed for
enhancement of the compensation.
6.The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal. Hence,
notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.
7.Though notice has been served on the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company and their name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation
for them either in person or through counsel.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused
the entire materials available on record.
9.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the
appellants that at the time of accident, the deceased Balaji was aged 45 years
and doing Textile Business in the name and style 'Divya Textiles'. To prove
the same, they have filed and marked Ex.P7 – letter pad of Divya Textiles and
Ex.P8 – Income Tax Returns filed by the deceased. The Tribunal, considering
the fact that the appellants have not examined any of the partners of the said
Divya Textiles and on perusal of Ex.P8, it is not clear that the income
received from the said business is lost, rightly rejected Exs.P7 and P8. In the
absence of any evidence by the appellants to show that after the death of the
deceased Balaji, the said Textiles Business is closed and there is complete
loss to the family, this Court is not inclined to fix the monthly income based
on Ex.P8 – Income Tax Returns filed by the deceased. The accident is of the
year 2009. The Tribunal has fixed only a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
notional income of the deceased. Considering the year of accident and nature
of work done by the deceased Balaji, the notional income of the deceased,
fixed by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal
following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN
MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others],
erroneously granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The
deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident. As per the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) (referred to
above), the appellants are entitled to only 25% enhancement towards future
prospects. The Tribunal following 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], applied the correct multiplier
'14'. There are four dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal rightly deducted
1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, fixing the monthly
income at Rs.12,000/-, granting 25% enhancement towards future prospects,
applying multiplier '14' and after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses
of the deceased, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
dependency is modified to Rs.18,90,000/- {[Rs.12,000/- + Rs.3,000/- (25% of
Rs.12,000/-)] x 12 x 14 x 3/4}. The Tribunal failed to award any amount
towards loss of estate. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss
of estate. The amount of Rs.30,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards loss of
consortium to the 1st appellant/wife of the deceased is meagre and hence, the
same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Apart from awarding loss of consortium to
the 1st appellant, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- each towards
loss of love and affection to all the appellants. The 1st appellant/wife of the
deceased is not entitled to any amount towards loss of love and affection.
Hence, the same is set aside. The appellants 2 & 3, who are the children of
the deceased Balaji are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of
parental consortium and 4th appellant, mother of the deceased Balaji is
entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. The amount
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence,
the same are hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified as follows:
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
S. No Description Amount awarded Amount Award
by Tribunal awarded by this confirmed or
(Rs) Court (Rs) enhanced or
granted
1. Loss of dependency 14,17,584/- 18,90,000/- Enhanced
2. Loss of consortium to 1st 30,000/- 40,000/- Enhanced
appellant
3. Loss of love and 25,000/- - Set aside
affection to 1st appellant
4. Loss of parental 50,000/- 80,000/- Enhanced
consortium to appellants
2&3
5. Loss of filial consortium 25,000/- 40,000/- Enhanced
to 4th appellant
6. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
7. Transportation 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
8. Loss of estate - 15,000/- Granted
Total 15,67,584/- 20,85,000/- Enhanced by
Rs.5,17,416/-
10.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount awarded
by the Tribunal at Rs.15,67,584/- is enhanced to Rs.20,85,000/- together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs,
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.
No.996 of 2016. On such deposit, the appellants 1 and 4 are permitted to
withdraw their share of the award amount, now determined by this Court,
along with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment
fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn,
by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The shares of the minor
appellants 2 and 3 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized
Bank, till the minors attain majority. The 1st appellant, mother of the minor
appellants 2 and 3 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three
months for the welfare of the minor appellants 2 and 3. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellants is directed to pay the Court fee on the enhanced
award amount, if any. No costs.
(V.M.V., J) (V.S.G., J)
06.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
gsa
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
(gsa)
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethi Mandram
(Fast Track Mahila Court)
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Vellore.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.M.A. No.2098 of 2021
06.09.2022
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
