Madras High Court
Divisional Manager vs Pavunraj on 6 April, 2023
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.185 & 186 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.185 & 186 of 2023
and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.2043 & 2045 of 2023
Divisional Manager,
M/s.The United Indian Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
LIC Divisional Building,
Jeevan Prakash Ground Floor,
No.39, Gandhiji Road,
Thanjavur – 613 001. ... Appellant in
both C.M.As.
Vs.
1.Pavunraj
2.Minor.Rajesh
3.Minor. Anusiya
(2 and 3 minor respondents are represented
through their guardian / 1st respondent)
4.Sebasthiyan
5.Backiyam
6.James
(Respondents R6 given up) .. Respondents in
both C.M.As.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.185 & 186 of 2023
COMMON PRAYER: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in
M.C.O.P.Nos.83 & 84 of 2021, dated 07.12.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Pudukottai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Sakundala Devi
(In both C.M.As)
For Respondents : Mr.G.Kandhavadivelan
(In both C.M.As) for Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
for R1 to R5
COMMON JUDGMENT
Challenging the quantum fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
cum Principal District Judge, Pudukottai in M.C.O.P.Nos.83 and 84 of 2021, dated
07.12.2021, the present two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their own
ranking before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.185 & 186 of 2023
3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal, are as follows:-
The petitioners 1 to 3 are the sons and daughter and the petitioners 4 and
5 are the parents of the deceased viz., Paneerselvam. The deceased Paneerselvam,
who was the father of the petitioners 1 to 3, was aged about 42 years and he was
doing centring work and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Their mother
was doing Milk vending business and also gardening work and she has also
earning a sum of Rs.22,500/- per month. Both the deceased were travelling in a
TVS Scooty on 02.11.2020, to purchase certain things for festival and while
returning back from market, from south to north direction, at about 3.20 hours, a
Car belonging to the first respondent, bearing Registration No.TN-21-AS-9979,
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler in which
both the deceased were travelling. As a result, both the husband and wife
succumbed to injuries and a case has also been registered in Crime No.584 of
2020, on the file of the Gandharvakkottai Police Station against the driver of the
Car. Hence, the petitioners have preferred two different claim petitions in
M.C.O.P.Nos.83 and 84 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.185 & 186 of 2023
4. Before the Tribunal, it is the defence of the first respondent in both the
petitions that the rider of the two wheeler viz., the deceased Paneerselvam without
showing any signal, suddenly turned right and crossed the road, which resulted in
an accident. The second respondent/ Insurance company took a stand that it is an
accident between two vehicles and it is also their stand that the deceased suddenly
crossed the road without any signal. Hence, opposed the claim.
5. On the side of the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and
P.W.2 and 20 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P.20. On the side of the
respondents, there was no oral and documentary evidence.
6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence has
found that the driver of the Car was responsible for the accident, which resulted
the death of the husband and wife and the Tribunal taking note of the fact that the
accident took place in the year 2020, adopted the Cost of Inflation Index for the
year 2018-19 and fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,108/- and
after making necessary deduction, has awarded the compensation as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.185 & 186 of 2023
(i) The compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.83 of 2021 are as follows:
S.No Heads Amount
1. Loss of income Rs.22,22,640/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
4. Filial Consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Total Rs.22,92,640/-
(ii) The compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2021 are as follows:
S.No Heads Amount
1. Loss of income Rs.21,16,800/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
4. Filial Consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Total Rs.21,86,800/-
Challenging the quantum of compensation, both these appeals have been filed.
7. The only ground on which, a challenge is made in these appeals is that the
Tribunal is not right in following the Cost of Inflation Index to arrive notional
income. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.185 & 186 of 2023
respondent/ Insurance Company that the notional income has to be fixed by the
Court and not by adopting the Cost of Inflation Index.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
9. It is relevant to note that the accident took place in the year 2020 and both
the deceased viz., Paneerselvam and Selvi @ Arockiamary, were aged about 42
and 40 years respectively, even if the minimum wages is applied for an ordinary
person, who has no avocation, at the relevant point of time, the monthly income
would be more than Rs.12,000/-. It is relevant to note that the deceased
Paneerselvam was doing centring work, which has a high demand in the
construction field. It is the common sense that even in such work, the minimum
payment would be more than Rs.1,000/- per day and even 20 days he was engaged
for such work, he will be earning for more than Rs.20,000/-. Even the wife of
Paneerselvam viz., Selvi @ Arockiamary, who was aged about 40 years, was
engaged in milk vending work and also gardening work. Therefore, this Court is
of the view that she would also earn Rs.15,000/- per month easily. Therefore, the
Tribunal fixing the monthly income at Rs.14,108/- by adopting the Cost of
Inflation Index does not appear to be excess and it is only just and reasonable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.185 & 186 of 2023
10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in these appeals.
Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed and the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Pudukottai in
M.C.O.P.Nos.83 and 84 of 2021, dated 07.12.2021, is confirmed. The 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation as
awarded by the Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge,
Pudukottai..
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.185 & 186 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.185 & 186 of 2023
06.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
