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
_____
1/11
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.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that at the
time of accident, the deceased Balaji was doing Textile Business and was
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 1 st 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.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
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.
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
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
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 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
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
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 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/-
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
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:
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
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
deposit. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is 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 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.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2098 of 2021
(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
