Madras High Court
Anjalai vs K.Selvam on 8 December, 2023
Author: G.Chandrasekharan
Bench: G.Chandrasekharan
C.M..A.(MD).No.537 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.M.A.(MD).No.537 of 2023
Anjalai, ... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.Selvam,
K.Selvam,
S/o.Krishnasamy,
No.10, Kumarakkattalai Street,
Mayiladuthurai Taluk,
Nagapattinam District..
2. The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Limited,
123-A, Taj Towers, No.2, Road,
Mayiladuthurai Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicle Act 1988 against the award and decree dated 14.12.2021
in M.C.O.P.No.105 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/(Addition District Court),Pudukottai dated 14-12-2021
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M..A.(MD).No.537 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.N.Tamilmani
For Respondents : Mr.J.S.Murali for R2
JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed challenging the award
dated 14.12.2021 in MCOP No.105 of 2020 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Pudukottai.
2.The appeal is filed on the short ground challenging the
multiplier adopted.
3. The appellant/claimant filed claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.25 lakhs for the death of her son. He died in a road
accident that had occurred on 15.08.2019. The manner of accident and
liability to pay the compensation are not disputed. The only question that
is canvassed before this Court is with regard to adoption of multiplier on
the basis of the age of the appellant/claimant instead of the age of the
deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
tribunal had adopted multiplier on the basis of the age of the appellant.
On the other hand, the tribunal ought to have considered the age of the
deceased instead of the appellant/claimant. The deceased was aged 42
years and the proper multiplier to be adopted is 14. In support of his
contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Mandala
Yadagari Goud and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 554.
5.The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company
has no serious objections.
6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
7. It has been categorically held in paragraph No.10 of the said
judgment, referred above that it is the age of the deceased and not the age
of the parents that would be the factor for the purpose of taking the
multiplier to be applied. For better appreciation, Paragraph No.10 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
extracted hereunder:
“A reading of the judgment in Sube Singh (supra)
shows that where a three Judge Bench has categorically taken the
view that it is the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents
that would be the factor for the purposes of taking the multiplier to
be applied. This judgment undoubtedly relied upon the case of
Munna Lal Jain (supra) which is also a three Judge Bench
judgment in this behalf. The relevant portion of the judgment has
also been extracted. Once again the extracted portion in turn refers
to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari & Ors.
Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. The relevant portion of Reshma Kumari
in turn has referred to Sarla Verma (supra) case and given its
imprimatur to the same. The loss of dependency is thus stated to be
based on : (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the
income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living
expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with
reference to the age of the deceased. It is the third aspect which is
of significance and Reshma Kumari categorically states that it does
not want to revisit the law settled in Sarla Verma case in this
behalf.”
8. If we apply the said ratio to the facts of the present case, if
the age of the deceased is taken as the basis, the proper multiplier would
be 14. When calculated on the basis of the notional income of the
deceased, ie., Rs.6,250/-, it comes to Rs.6250 x 12 x 14 = Rs.10,50,000/-.
As such the loss of dependency would be at Rs.10,50,000/-. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation awarded on other heads is retained.
9. Thus, the compensation awarded is enhanced as follows:
Heads Awarded by Modified/ Final
the tribunal reduced Compensation
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of 3,75,000/- (enhanced) 10,50,000
dependency
Loss of lov and 50,000/- Confirmed 50,000
affection
Ambulance 10,000 Confirmed 10,000
charges
Funeral 15,000 Confirmed 15,000
expenses
Total 4,50,000 Enhanced 11,25,000
9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part
and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from
Rs.4,50,000/- to Rs.11,25,000/-. The 2nd respondent insurance company is
directed to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.11,25,000/- (Rupees
eleven lakhs twenty five thousand only), if not already deposited, within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment with
interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deposit to the credit of MCOP No.105 /2020 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Pudukottai. On such
deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the
award amount with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn,
if any, on due application before the Tribunal. No costs.
08.12.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
RR
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court, Pudukottai
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
RR
08.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
