Madras High Court
Baby vs J.Valarmathi on 4 August, 2023
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
1.Baby
2.Samraj
3.Samakkal ... Appellants
Vs
1.J.Valarmathi
2.The Branch Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
10003-E-8,
RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 022. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2016 in
M.C.O.P.No.32/2013 on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Appellants : Mr.Mukund R. Pandiyan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Poomalai, for R2
No Appearance for R1
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants
challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the
award dated 01.04.2016 made in M.C.O.P. No.32 of 2013 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.
2. The appellants filed M.C.O.P. No.32 of 2013 on the file of the
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri
claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one
Nataraj, who died in the accident that took place on 12.12.2012.
3. According to the appellants, on 12.12.2012 at about 05.00 pm,
while the deceased Nataraj was standing on the side of the road to go to his
house at Soolaimalai, the driver of the Medium Goods Vehicle bearing
Registration No.TN-24-8638 belonging to the first respondent, drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner, came from Krishnagiri side towards
Thiruvannamalai, hit against the said Nataraj and caused the accident. Due
to the impact, the said Nataraj sustained head injury and died on the spot.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
Hence, the appellants filed claim petition claiming compensation against the
respondents.
4. The first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
5. The second respondent filed a counter statement denying all the
averments made by the appellants in the claim petition. According to the
second respondent, the deceased Natraj who was walking on the left side of
the road, suddenly crossed the road without noticing the oncoming lorry,
came in front of the lorry and invited the accident; and that the driver of the
first respondent did not possess any driving license; that the second
respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the appellants; and that in
any event the total compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. The 1st appellant examined herself as PW1 and Elangovan, eye-
witness to the accident was examined as PW2. Three documents were
marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. Neither documents were marked nor witnesses
were examined on the side of the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents
filed on the side of the appellants, held that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent and directed
the respondents jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.7,75,000/- as
compensation to the appellants.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the
present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the award
of compensation is meagre. The Tribunal had taken only Rs.7,500/- as
monthly income including future prospects. The accident took place in the
year 2012 and the appellants have established through PW.1 that the
deceased had a poultry farm and was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per
month at the time of accident. The learned counsel further submitted that
the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection
whereas the three appellants are entitled to each Rs.40,000/- and prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
10. Though notice has been served on the first respondent and his
name is printed in the cause list, none appeared for him.
11. The learned counsel for the second respondent per contra
submitted that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable. In the
absence of any evidence to show the income of the deceased, the Tribunal
had taken Rs.7,500/- per month which need not be interfered with.
Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
12. The short point involved in the instant appeal is-
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
13. On perusal of the records, this Court finds that the appellants
have established that the deceased had a poultry farm. Though they have
claimed that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, no proof was filed to
establish the same. In the absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal was
right in fixing the notional income. However, the notional income fixed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
the Tribunal is meagre. The accident took place in the year 2012.
Considering the age of the deceased, the fact that he was running a poultry
farm and the cost inflation index, this Court is of the view that it would be
just and reasonable to fix Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income for the
deceased. It is seen that the age of the deceased as per the legal heir
certificate is 51 years. Therefore, the multiplier applicable is 11. The
appellants are entitled to 25% towards future prospects. The deceased was
survived by his wife and children. Hence, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards
his personal expenses. Thus, the compensation under the head loss of
earning is calculated as follows:- Rs.9,000/-+2,250/-
(9,000x25%)x12x11x2/3 =Rs.9,90,000/-. The appellants are also entitled to
Rs.1,20,000/- under the head loss of love and affection instead of
Rs.1,00,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other
heads is just and reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. Thus, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.7,75,000/- to
Rs.11,20,000/-, break-up as follows -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Funeral expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
2. Loss of love and 1,00,000/- 1,20,000/- Enhanced
affection and loss of (Rs.40,000x3)
consortium
3. Loss of earning 6,65,000/- 9,90,000/- Enhanced
Total 7,75,000/- 11,20,000/- Enhanced
by
Rs.3,45,000/-
14. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.7,75,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.11,20,000/- together with interest at
8% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of
petition till the date of deposit. The second respondent / Insurance Company
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
period of six (6) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of this Judgment.
On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their share of the
award amount along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
any, already withdrawn, on the basis of apportionment fixed by the
Tribunal. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if any,
on the enhanced award amount. No costs.
04.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AT
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
AT
C.M.A.No.590 of 2022
04.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
