Madras High Court
S.Mani vs Veerasamy on 10 August, 2023
C.M.A.No.700 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.700 of 2023
1.S.Mani,
2.S.Suganya,
3.S.Kannan (Minor),
S/o. Late Sundarasu,
(Represented by his Mother and Next Friend 1st Appellant)
... Appellants
Versus
1.Veerasamy
2.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
No.232, Bombay Mutual Building,
6th Floor, N.S.C. Bose Road,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2022
passed in M.C.O.P. No.2369 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For R1 : No Appearance
For R2 : Mr.P.Kandasamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A.No.700 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.2369 of 2018,
dated 09.12.2022.
2.The claim petition was filed stating that on 18.03.2018 at 12.20
hours, when the deceased was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration
No.TN 07 CA 6426 at Ekkattuthangal Kasi Theatre over bridge service
road, near Metro Train pillar No.47 & 48, another two wheeler bearing
Registration No. TN 09 BS 6291 came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the appellants are
entitled for compensation.
3.The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-
parte before the Tribunal.
4.The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter denying all
the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the rider of the
offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.700 of 2023
accident. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to
the appellants. In any case, the compensation claimed is excessive and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined two witnesses and
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 on their side. On behalf of the 2 nd
respondent/Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 and R2
were marked.
6.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding
by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 1st respondent, who is
minor and directed the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending
vehicle, to pay a sum of Rs.16,65,500/- as compensation to the
appellants/claimants, with liberty to recover the same from the 1st
respondent for violation of policy conditions.
7.Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the
appellants/claimants filed the present appeal seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.700 of 2023
8.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
submitted that the Tribunal had awarded a meagre compensation by
fixing a notional income of Rs.11,500/- per month, although the
appellants have established that the deceased was working as a cook in a
foreign country. Therefore, he prayed that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal has to be enhanced.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company submitted that the appellants had not produced any document
either to prove the avocation or the income of the deceased. Except
Ex.P7-copy of the passport, nothing has been produced to prove that the
deceased was employed abroad. In the absence of any evidence, the
Tribunal was right in fixing the notional income of Rs.11,500/- per
month and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10.The 1st respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and
therefore, learned counsel for the appellants prayed to dispense with
notice to the 1st respondent and made an endorsement to that effect.
Hence, the notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.700 of 2023
11.The only question arises in the instant appeal is whether the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable?
12.From the materials on record, it is seen that the Tribunal had
fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.11,500/- per month. The
appellants examined PW.1 – wife of the deceased to prove that the
deceased was working as a cook in a foreign country and was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. However, no document has been filed to
corroborate the oral evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, the Tribunal was right
in fixing the notional income. However, this Court is of the view that the
notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. Considering the age of
deceased, his avocation, number of dependants and the year of the
accident, this court is a view that it would be just and reasonable to fix
Rs.15,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The deceased
was aged 50 years at the time of accident. By applying multiplier 13,
granting 25% enhancement towards future prospects and deducting 2/3rd
towards personal expenses, the dependency is calculated as follows:
Rs.18,750 (15000 X 25%) x 12 x 13 x 2/3 = Rs.19,50,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.700 of 2023
The award under other heads are just and reasonable and hence,
the same are confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is modified as follows:
S. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of 14,95,000 19,50,000 Enhanced
dependency
2. Loss of Estate 16,500 16,500 Confirmed
3. Funeral Expenses 16,500 16,500 Confirmed
4. Loss of 1,32,000 1,32,000 Confirmed
Consortium
5. Transportation 5,500 5,500 Confirmed
Expenses
Total 16,65,500 21,20,500 Enhanced by
Rs.4,55,000/-
13.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.16,65,500/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.21,20,500/- together with
interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the
date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent is directed to
deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with
interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.700 of 2023
period of six (6) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of this
Judgment at the first instance and thereafter, recover the same from the
1st respondent. On such deposit, the appellants 1 and 2 are permitted to
withdraw their respective shares of the award amount along with interest
and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The share of the
minor 3rd appellant is directed to be deposited in any one of the
Nationalised Bank, till the minor attains majority. The 1st appellant-
mother of the 3rd appellant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest
once in three months. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary
Court fee, if any on the enhanced award amount. No costs.
10.08.2023
rst
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To:
1.The Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal,
IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.700 of 2023
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
rst
C.M.A.No.700 of 2023
10.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
