Madras High Court
Mahalakshmi vs The Divisional Manager on 24 April, 2023
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.27 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 24.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.27 of 2023
1.Mahalakshmi
2.Minor.Prasuram
3.Marimuthu
4.Mariammal
(Minor 2nd petitioner represented through
his mother & guardian -1st petitioner) ... Petitioners / respondents 1 to 4
Vs.
1.The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Having its office at 1st floor,
Lyola Campus, Salai Road,
Dindigul Town. ... 1st respondent / appellant
2.Natarajan ... 2nd Respondent / 5th respondent
PRAYER :- Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section
114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree, dated
04.11.2022 passed by this Court made in C.M.A.(MD)No.1035 of 2021 on the
file of this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.27 of 2023
For Review Petitioners : Mr.S.Pugalendhi
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran for R1
ORDER
This Review Application is filed against the judgment passed in
C.M.A.(MD)No.1035 of 2021, dated 04.11.2022. The Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is filed against the order in M.C.O.P.No.534 of 2013 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Dindigul. A
Cross Objection in Cros.Obj.(MD)No.6 of 2022 was filed against the order
passed in M.C.O.P.No.534 of 2013.
2. On the side of the review petitioners, it was stated that the
deceased was a married man, but, in the order in C.M.A.(MD)No.1035 of
2021, dated 04.11.2022, it was wrongly mentioned that the deceased was a
bachelor and the compensation was calculated as if the deceased was a
bachelor and prayed the same to be rectified.
3. On the side of the first respondent / appellant, it is stated that
the deceased was a married man, but, it was wrongly mentioned as unmarried
man, in the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.27 of 2023
4. A perusal of the records reveals that the deceased was a
married man, but, the calculation was made as if the deceased was a bachelor.
This is a mistake apparent and hence, it should be rectified.
5. In paragraph No.12 of the judgment, it was mentioned that the
deceased was a bachelor and 50% of the income was deducted towards his
own expenses. The monthly salary was fixed as Rs.8,000/-. Considering the
fact that the deceased was a married man and considering the number of the
dependants, 1/4th of the income ought to have been deducted. After deducting
1/4th income (Rs.2,000/-) and after adding 40% (Rs.2,400/-) towards future
prospects and after applying multiplier '18', the loss of income is calculated as
Rs.18,14,400/- (Rs.8,400/- X 12 X18). After adding Rs.70,000/- towards
conventional charges, the total compensation is calculated as Rs.18,84,400/-
(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand and Four Hundred only).
6. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed and the Cross objection
is partly allowed. The first claimant is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- with
proportionate interest and costs, the second claimant is entitled to
Rs.6,00,000/- with proportionate interest, the third claimant is entitled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.27 of 2023
Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate interest and the fourth claimant is entitled to
Rs.1,84,400/- with proportionate interest.
7. Paragraph No.12 and 13 of the order, to be modified as
follows:-
“12.The accident took place in the year 2013. The
salary certificate was marked as Ex.P5. The deceased was
working as a watch man. The age of the deceased was only 24
years. In view of the same, the Tribunal has fixed notional
income as Rs.8,000/-, which is very reasonable. The Tribunal
deducted 1/4 of the income for the living expenses of the
deceased. Considering the fact that the deceased is a married
man, 1/4th of the income is to be deducted after deducting 1/4th
towards personal expenses, the deceased might have contributed
Rs.6,000/- per month to his family members. The deceased was
below the age of 40 years. Hence 40% future prospects is to be
added. After adding 40% (Rs.2,400/-) towards future prospects,
the monthly salary is calculated as Rs.8,400- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.
2,400/-). Hence, the loss of income is calculated as Rs.
18,14,400/~(Rs.8,400 x 12 x 18). As per the dictum of the Hon-
ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case, the claimants are
entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards conventional charges. Hence, the
award is modified as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.27 of 2023
Loss of Income - Rs.18,14,400/-
Conventional charges - Rs. 70,000/-
........................
Total - Rs.18,84,400/-
...........................
13.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed and the Cross objection is hereby partly allowed.
(i) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is enhanced from Rs.15,56,000/- to Rs.18,84,400/- (Rupees
Eighteen Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand and Four Hundred only)
which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
(ii) The Appellant /Insurance company, is directed to
deposit the entire compensation of Rs.18,84,400/- (if not already
deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and
proportionate costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.534 of 2013
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional
District Judge, Dindigul, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) On such deposit being made by the
Appellant /insurance company, the first respondent herein/ first
claimant is entitled to a share of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight
Lakhs only) with proportionate interest and costs, the third
respondent herein /3rd claimant is entitled to a share of Rs.
3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with proportionate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.27 of 2023
interest and the fourth respondent herein /4th claimant is entitled
to a share of Rs.1,84,400/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Four
Thousand Four Hundred only), with proportionate interest. The
respondents 1,3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective
share with the interest.
(iv) The second respondent /2nd claimant (minor) herein is
entitled for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
only) with proportionate interest, which is ordered to be
deposited in any one of the nationalized bank until he attains
majority and the first respondent/1st claimant is permitted to
withdraw the interest directly from the bank, once in three
months in order to maintain the minors. The
appellants/claimants are directed to pay the court fee for the
enhanced compensation, and the Registry is directed to draft the
decree only after the payment of Court fee. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.”
12.The Registry is directed to modify the above order in
paragraph Nos.12 and 13 and to issue a fresh order copy. With the above
observations, this Review Application is partly allowed. No costs.
24.04.2023
NCC: Yes / No
Index: Yes / No
Ls
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.27 of 2023
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum
Additional District Judge,
Dindigul.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.27 of 2023
R.THARANI, J.
Ls
order made in
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.27 of 2023
24.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
