Madras High Court
Chandramathi vs The Principal on 23 September, 2022
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2014
1.Chandramathi
2.Kumar
3.Easwari
4.Arumugam .. Appellants
-Vs.-
1.The Principal,
M/s.Adithanar Educational Institution,
No.86, E.V.K.Sampath Salai,
Veppery, Chennai.
2. The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Katpadi Road,T.K.M.Complex,
Vellore.
(1st respondent was set ex-parte
before the court below. Hence notice
may be dispense with). .. Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the Decree and Judgment dated 04.12.2009 made in
M.C.O.P.No.161 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge) Vellore.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2014
For Appellants : Mr.M.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.C.Paranthaman[R2]
R1 - Exparte
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed the above appeal seeking enhancement of
the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal
District Court), Vellore in M.C.O.P.No.161 of 2007.
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Kuppammal, being her
children. They had filed the above above claim petition seeking
compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of their mother in a
road accident. The deceased Kuppammal, who was standing on the road
side along with her grand daughter, had been hit by the first respondent's
vehicle, which had resulted in her death.
3. The second respondent-Insurance Company before the Tribunal,
had alone had contested the claim petition. They had filed a counter
denying the nature of the accident as also the age and income of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2014
deceased. They had contended that the said Kuppammal attempted to cross
the National Highways without following the basic road Rules, which had
caused the accident. The Tribunal, after taking note of the evidence held
that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the first respondent's car.
4. The Tribunal has relied on the evidence of P.W2 and Exs.P1 and
P4, F.I.R and charge sheet respectively to arrive at the conclusion.
Thereafter, a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- has been awarded as compensation. The
petitioners are particularly aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal has only
adopted a notional income of Rs.3,000/-, despite the fact that the petitioners
have stated that the deceased, who was aged 51 years, was running a tiffin
centre, where she would have earned nothing less than a sum of Rs.15,000/-
per month. That apart, they had contended that the Tribunal has not taken
note of the future prospects and the multiplier adopted is also not
commensurate to her age. Though the petitioners have stated that she was
aged about 61 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal had held that
the deceased age should be 60 years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2014
5. Mr.C.Paranthaman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
second respondent-Insurance Company would submit that petitioners have
not let in any evidence whatsoever to prove that the deceased was running a
tiffin centre and therefore, the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal was fair
and reasonable.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
7. Though the petitioners have not produced the proof to show that
the deceased was running a tiffin centre, even assuming that she is a daily
wage earner, the notional income can be fixed at Rs.4,500/-, to this, taking
into account the age of the deceased, 10% can be added towards future
prospects Therefore, the monthly notional income would be a sum of
Rs.4,950/- and the annual income of the deceased would be a sum of
Rs.59,400/- [Rs.4,950/- x 12], after deducting 1/3rd towards personal
expenses, the family would receive a sum of Rs.39,600/- annually. Taking
into account the age of the deceased, which is 60, the commensurate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2014
multiplier is 7. Therefore, the amount under the head of loss of income is
enhanced to a sum of Rs.2,77,200/-. [Rs.39,600 x 7]. Therefore, the
re-worked compensation is as follows:-
Heads Amount by the Amount Awarded
Tribunal in Rs by this Court in
Rs
Loss of Income 1,20,000 2,77,200
Funeral Expenses 5,000 5,000
Transportation 3,000 3,000
Total 1,28,000 2,85,200
8. The appeal is partly allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is
modified, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,28,000/- to
Rs.2,85,200/- The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount to the
credit of M.C.O.P.No.161 of 2007 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 claimants are permitted to withdraw the award
amount, along with proportionate accrued interest and costs as awarded by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2014
the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary
application before the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall be proportioned
among the claimants as per the Award of the Tribunal. The 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 claimants. In other respects, the Award of the
Tribunal is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in the
present appeal.
23.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
srn
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
(MACT), Vellore.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2014
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2014
23.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
