Madras High Court
Managing Director vs S.Samundeeswari on 8 September, 2022
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
and
Cros.Obj.No.28 of 2021
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Villupuram Division III,
No.3/137, Salamedu,
Villupuram – 605 602. ... Appellant
Vs
1.S.Samundeeswari
2.S.Ramya ... Respondents
Cros.Obj.No.28 of 2021
in C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
1.S.Samundeeswari
2.S.Ramya ... Cross Objectors
Vs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Villupuram Division III,
No.3/137, Salamedu,
Villupuram – 605 602. ... Respondent
Prayer in C.M.A.No.690 of 2013: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal
order dated 21.03.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 2008 by the learned
Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chennai.
Prayer in Cros.Obj.No.28 of 2021: Cross Objection filed under Order 41
Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree order
dated 21.03.2011 in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 2008 on the file of the Addl. District
Court, Fast Track Court I, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chennai.
For Appellant in C.M.A.No.690
of 2013 & Respondent in
Cros.Obj.No.28 of 2021 : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan
For Respondents in C.M.A.No.690
of 2013 & Cross Objectors in : M/s.Ramya V.Rao
Cros.Obj.No.28 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
COMMON JUDGEMENT
The Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal challenging the
award passed in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chennai.
2.The facts in brief are herein below narrated and the parties are
referred to in the same rank as before the Tribunal.
3.The petitioners, who are the wife and daughter of one R.Sridharan
has filed the above claim petition seeking compensation for his death in a
road accident on 04.09.2007. It is their case that the said Sridharan was
working as a Site Supervisor with M/s.Prashad Amstrong Yen G.E.C. (P)
Ltd., and aged about 44 years at the time of his death. On 04.09.2007, at
about 14.50 hrs, when the deceased Sridharan was proceeding on his cycle
from West to East direction on EVR Salai and when he was taking a turn
towards north to enter 3rd Avenue Salai, Anna Arch signal, a water tanker
lorry bearing Registration No.TML 8778 belonging to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
respondent/Transport Corporation was driven in a rash and negligent
manner and at a dangerous speed. The said vehicle was proceeding in the
same direction as the deceased and had hit the deceased from behind, as a
result of which, he had sustained fatal injuries. The petitioners had claimed
a total compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.
4.The respondent/Transport Corporation had filed a counter, in
which, they would submit that when the driver of the water tanker lorry has
turned his vehicle to enter the water filling up station, a cycle coming in the
same direction without noticing the lorry turning to the left dashed against
the lorry's rear wheel. As a result of which, he had fallen down and
sustained injuries. He was admitted to the Government Hospital at Kilpauk.
It is their contention that the accident had occurred only on account of the
negligence of the deceased Sridharan.
5.The Tribunal below by its award, dated 21.03.2011 held that the
accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the driver of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
respondent/Transport Corporation's lorry. Thereafter, the Tribunal
proceeded to arrive at a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, which is payable to
the petitioners.
6.The Transport Corporation has filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.690 of
2013 seeking to set aside the award on the ground that it was excessive and
the Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the deceased as
well.
7.The Transport Corporation has also challenged the salary certificate,
which has been marked as Ex.P6 on the ground that the same has not been
marked through the appropriate witness. After receiving notice in this
appeal, the petitioners have entered appearance and have filed a cross
objection seeking an enhancement of the compensation.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the Cross Objectors would
submit that Ex.P6, salary certificate would show that the gross salary of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
deceased was a sum of Rs.5,800/-, whereas the same has been rejected by
the Tribunal below and the Tribunal has arrived at a notional income of
Rs.5,000/- taking into account, the monthly income as claimed in the claim
petition by the petitioners.
9.She would further submit that the Tribunal has not granted any
amount under the head of future prospects. Considering the age, 40% has to
be added towards the future prospects. That apart, the amounts under the
conventional heads viz., loss of consortium, loss of love and affection,
funeral expenses and loss of estate have also to be enhanced. She would
contend that a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been granted towards loss of
consortium, the same has to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Likewise, the
amounts granted jointly under the head of funeral and transport expenses at
Rs.10,000/- has to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.15,000/- for transport
expenses and another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
10.Heard the learned counsels on both side and perused the materials
available on record.
11.Admittedly, Ex.P6, salary certificate would show the gross salary
at Rs.5,800/-. This document has been marked through the employer. The
person, who had deposed and through whom the document is marked is the
Managing Director. The document has been marked through authorised
representative. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant in this regard has to be countenanced.
12.The deceased was aged about 44 years at the time of his death.
Future prospects have not been considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, 10%
has to be adopted towards future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income
would be a sum of Rs.6,380/- (i.e., Rs.5,800/- + Rs.580/-) and the annual
income would work out to a sum of Rs.76,560/-. Out of this, 1/3 rd has to be
deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the contribution to the
family would be a sum of Rs.51,040/-. The appropriate multiplier in the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
of the deceased is 13. Therefore, the loss of dependency would work out to a
sum of Rs.6,63,520/-, which is worked out as follows :-
Loss of Income Amount in Rs.
Notional income (Per month) 5,800
Add: Future Prospects (Rs.5,800/- x 10%) (Per month) 580
6,380
Notional income (Per annum) (Rs.6,380/- x 12) 76,560
Less: Personal expenses (1/3rd) (Rs.76,560/- x 1/3rd) 25,520
51,040
Loss of income (Rs.51,040 x 13) 6,63,520
Total 6,63,520
13.A sum of Rs.30,000/- has been granted under the head of loss of
consortium, which stands enhanced to a sum of Rs.40,000/-. A sum of
Rs.10,000/- has been granted under the heads of funeral and transport
expenses, which is enhanced to a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Further, a sum of
Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate. Therefore, the total
compensation payable to the respondents is Rs.7,73,520/-, which is worked
out as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
Heads Awarded by Awarded by
the Tribunal this Court
(Amount in (Amount in
Rs.) Rs.)
Loss of income 5,20,000 6,63,520
(enhanced)
Funeral and transport expenses 10,000 15,000
(enhanced)
Loss of consortium 30,000 40,000
(enhanced)
Loss of love and affection 40,000 40,000
Loss of estate - 15,000
Total 6,00,000 7,73,520
14.In the result, the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation in
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013 is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the
claimants in Cros.Obj.No.28 of 2021 is allowed.
15.The Award of the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,73,520/-. The Appellant-
Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.58 of 2008 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
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. The said
amount shall be apportioned amongst the claimants as per the Award of the
Tribunal. On such deposit being made, the respondents/claimants are
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 respondents/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
respondents/claimants. In other respects, the Award of the Tribunal is
hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.
08.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
sp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
To
1.The MACT (Spl. District Judge) at Salem.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
P.T.ASHA, J.,
sp
C.M.A.No.690 of 2013
and
Cros.Obj.No.28 of 2021
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
