Madras High Court

Lakshmi vs S.Chitheswari on 25 April, 2023

                                                                                      C.M.A.No.2329 of 2019



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED :25.04.2023

                                                          CORAM

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

                                                 C.M.A.No.2329 of 2019

                    1. Lakshmi
                    2. Alagarasan                                               ..Appellants
                                                             Vs
                    1.S.Chitheswari
                    2.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,
                      No.8/H1, Mangalam Building,
                      Four Roads, Salem -636009.                                .Respondents
                    Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
                    Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in
                    MCOP.No.882 of 2011 dated 04.09.2015 on the file of Motor Accident
                    Claims Tribunal and Special District Judge, Salem.

                                        For Appellants :Mr.SP.Yuaraj

                                      For Respondents :Mr Srinivasa Ramalingam for R2
                                                       JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement

of compensation under the impugned award dated 04.09.2015 passed by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2329 of 2019

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Special District Judge, Salem in

MCOP.No.882 of 2011.

2. On 02.04.2011 at about 8.00 am,, the deceased was proceeding

in his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-30-AY-6720 from

Nallagoundampatty to Muthunaickenpatty. When he was s proceeding

after crossing Tholur bus stop at Pagalpatty to Muthunaickenpatty main

road, a Mahendra Bolero Pick Up Van bearing Engine No.GHAIM77083

Chassis No.B1A11013 came in the opposite direction at a high speed. The

driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the deceased due to which he fell down and sustained

grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. Claiming that the

deceased was a driver and was earning about Rs.15000/- per month and the

driver of the van is solely responsible for the accident, the appellants /

claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of

Rs.20,00,000/-.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2329 of 2019

3. The appellants unsatisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award have preferred this

appeal seeking enhancement.

4. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the

impugned award are as follows:

                                           Heads            Award Amount
                                                                (Rs.)
                                  Loss of Income                      5,83,200/-
                                  (after deduction 10% of
                                  income tax)
                                  Loss of love and                      20,000/-
                                  affection to appellants
                                  Funeral Expenses                      25,000/-
                                  Total                               6,28,200/-

5. Before the Tribunal, the Appellants/claimants examined three

witnesses as PWI to PW3 and filed seventeen documents which were

marked as Ex.Pl to Ex.P17 and material object as MO1. On the side of the

Respondents, three witnesses were examined as RW1 to RW3 and marked

four documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2329 of 2019

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel

for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants/Claimants

submitted that the Judgment and decree of the lower court is contrary to

law, facts, evidence and probabilities of the case. Though the deceased was

earning more than Rs.500/- per month, the Tribunal has taken only

Rs.6000/- per month as his monthly income. It has failed to note that the

age of he deceased was 21 years at the time of the accident and he is the

sole bread winner of the family but erroneously, the Tribunal has not

awarded future prospects. It has deducted 10% for tax which the Apex

Court in its judgment reported in 2013 (7) SCC 476 says that the tax

should be deducted only for the taxable income for that year but here it

was not done so because the income is below the taxable income. It failed

to consider the Saralavarma case which is reported in 2009 (2) TANMAC 1

before awarding compensation. There can be no exact, uniform rule for

measuring the value of human life and the measure of damage cannot be

arrived by precise mathematical calculation. It has overlooked the pain and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2329 of 2019

sufferings caused before the death took place. It failed to note that the

death is not instantaneous one, hence the pain and sufferings that the death

caused to the family of victim should be taken note of by the trial court.

The Tribunal, without appreciating the evidences properly, has awarded

the total compensation of Rs.6,28,200/- and the said quantum is

unreasonable. The amount awarded under various heads are very meagre

Hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

has submitted that the compensation claimed by the appellants is highly

excessive and baseless. This second respondent is not liable to pay any

compensation to the claimants. He further submitted that the Tribunal after

analysing the evidences on record, has rightly awarded the compensation

to the appellants/claimants and hence, the award passed by the Tribunal

does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, he prays for

dismissal of the appeal.

9. Considering the age and eating capacity of the deceased, the

Tribunal fixed Rs.6000/-, per month, adopting the multiplier of 18, and

after deducting deducting 1/2 of the income towards personal expenses of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2329 of 2019

the deceased, has arrived at a sum of Rs.6,28,200/-. The Tribunal has relied

upon Ex.P1/FIR, Ex.P2/Post Mortem Report and Ex.P5/Driving license

and taken the age of the deceased as 21 years. On perusal of records, it is

seen that the Tribunal has not properly considered the evidences and the

documents marked. Hence, some heads need re-visit for a reasonable

award.

10. Taking note of the above submissions of the learned counsel for

the appellants / claimants, age of the deceased, rise in the cost of living and

also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered

view that Rs.7000/- is to be taken as monthly income of the deceased.

Since the age of the deceased was 21 years at the time of accident, the

multiplier of 18 has to be taken for computing loss of income. Further,

40% is taken for future prospects and 50% towards personal expenses has

to be deducted for calculating loss of income. If Rs.7000/- is taken as the

monthly income of the deceased, after adding 40% towards future

prospects and 50% of the amount is deducted towards personal expenses

and the multiplier of 18 is adopted, the loss of income works out to

Rs.10,58,400/- (7000 + 40%= 2800; 7000+2800-9800- 50% = 4900; 4900

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2329 of 2019

x 12 x 18 = 10,58,400/-.) Accordingly, the amount awarded by the

Tribunal towards 'loss of income' stands modified to Rs. 10,58,400/-. The

dependants of the deceased have lost their emotional support and hence it

would be appropriate to enhance the award under the head of loss of love

and affection to the claimants to Rs.40000/- each and thus arrived at

Rs.80,000/- (40,000/- x 2). However, this court is of the considered

opinion that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral

expenses which is on higher side and hence the same needs re-visit. It

would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenses. On perusal of records, it is seen that no amount is awarded under

the head of loss of estate for which they are entitled to. Hence, this court is

inclined to grant a sum of Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate.

11. The details of the modified compensation are as under:

                                       Heads             Amount      Award Amount
                                                     awarded by the by this Court
                                                      Tribunal (Rs.)     (Rs.)
                                  Loss of Income         5,83,200/-      10,58,400/-
                                  Loss of love and        20,000/-          80,000/-
                                  affection to the                       (40000 x 2)
                                  appellants


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    C.M.A.No.2329 of 2019




                                          Heads          Amount      Award Amount
                                                     awarded by the by this Court
                                                      Tribunal (Rs.)     (Rs.)
                                  Funeral Expenses         25,000           15,000/-
                                  Loss of Estate            ----            15,000/-
                                  Total                 6,28,200/-       11,53,400/-

12. In the considered opinion of this court, the appellants/claimants

are entitled to the total compensation amount of Rs.11,53,400/- without

deduction towards income tax.

13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

14. The second respondent is directed to deposit the modified

compensation as ordered above, 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 Tribunal is directed to transfer

the award amount along with accrued interest to the bank accounts of the

appellants/claimants through RTGS within a period of two weeks

thereafter. No costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2329 of 2019