Madras High Court

Saroja vs V.T.Dinesh Kumar on 11 December, 2023

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                              C.M.A.No.1967 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 11.12.2023

                                                          CORAM

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                 C.M.A.No.1967 of 2020


                     1.Saroja
                     2.Minor Logapriya

                     Minor appellant represented by her
                     grandmother and natural guardian
                     1st appellant Saroja                                ... Appellants

                                                            Vs.

                     1.V.T.Dinesh Kumar

                     2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,
                       No.140, 2nd and 3rd Floor,
                       Cottabai Centre,
                       Nungambakkam High Road,
                       Nungambakkam,
                       Chennai – 600 034.                       ... Respondents


                     Prayer:
                                  Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow the above civil miscellaneous appeal and
                     enhance the award passed in judgment and decree dated 10.03.2020
                     made in M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents
                     Claims Tribunal, II Additional District and Sessions Court, Ranipet,
                     Vellore District.




                     1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               C.M.A.No.1967 of 2020



                                       For Appellants    : Mr.M.Sivakumar

                                       For Respondents : R1 – No appearance for R1
                                                         Mr.B.Sivakollappan for R2


                                                        JUDGMENT

The petitioners before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are

the appellants herein. This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside

the order dated 10.03.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, II Additional District and Sessions Court, Ranipet, Vellore

District, in M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2018.

2.The brief facts of the case is that on 06.08.2017 at about

14.00 hours, the deceased Ravichamdran was riding a two wheeler

Bajaj Discover bearing Registration No.TN 73 B 9886 in Chennai to

Bangalore National Highways Road near Nandiyalam Arjunappa Street

Junction. At that time, the driver of the Benz Car bearing

Registration No.KA 12 P 9508 owned by the first respondent and

insured with the second respondent came on the backside of the two

wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the two

wheeler, due to which, the deceased died on the way to hospital.

3.Thereafter, the dependants of the deceased/ appellants filed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming

compensation of Rs.32 Lakhs. After adjudication, the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,03,220/- as compensation to

the claimants/ appellants with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from

the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed

the second respondent to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the

same, the appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of

compensation.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted

that the first appellant is the mother of the deceased and the second

appellant is the daughter of the deceased and further submitted that

the deceased was drawing pension of Rs.19,165/- per month and the

second appellant/ daughter of the deceased is entitled for 50% of the

pension amount and the same was not taken into consideration by the

Tribunal and the amount awarded is also very meagre and prayed for

enhancement in compensation.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

Insurance Company submitted that the wife of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

deceased

predeceased the deceased and the minor second appellant is entitled

for 50% of the pension till the age of 25 years, however, the pension

drawn by the deceased was not established by the appellants before

the Tribunal while awarding compensation and the amount awarded

by the Tribunal under the other heads are just and reasonable.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as

well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.

7.The accident and the manner in which the accident happened

are not disputed. The negligence aspect is also not in dispute. The

appeal has been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation.

8.The tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspects

awarded a sum of Rs.9,68,220/- for loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/-

for funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- (50,000/- each) for loss of love

and affection, Rs.5,000/- for transportation to the hospital and for

taking the body, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and arrived at a total

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

compensation of Rs.11,03,220/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.

from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and

costs.

9.Perusal of records reveal that the deceased was a retired

army personal and was drawing pension of a sum of Rs.19,165/- per

month and after his retirement, he was working as a Security in

Qmax Security and Training Academy. Considering the fact that the

deceased was working as a Security in Qmax Security and Training

Academy from 01.04.2010 to 03.08.2017, the Tribunal fixed the

monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. and added a sum

of Rs.1,000/- towards future prospects and by adopting multiplier 11,

awarded a sum of Rs.9,68,220/- for loss of dependency, however, the

Tribunal failed to consider that the daughter of the deceased is

entitled for 50% of the pension and failed to add the same while

awarding compensation.

10.Hence, this Court adds 50% of the pension amount with the

monthly salary of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal and the amount

works out to Rs.19,582/- [50% of Rs.19,165/- = Rs.9,582.5 rounded

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

off to Rs.9,582/-. Rs.9,582/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.19,582/-] and after

deducting 1/3 of the amount towards his personal expenses, the

amount works out to Rs.13,055/- [1/3 of Rs.19,582/- = Rs.6,527.3

rounded off to Rs.6,527/-. Rs.19,582/- - Rs.6,527/- = Rs.13,055/-].

This Court is inclined to award future prospects separately. The

deceased was aged 52 years at the time of death and the Tribunal

has rightly adopted the multiplier 11. Hence, the actual loss of

dependency works out to Rs.17,23,260/- [Rs.13,055/- X 12 X 11 =

Rs.17,23,260/-]. This Court awards 10% of actual loss of

dependency for future prospects, which comes to Rs.1,72,326/- [10%

of Rs.17,23,260/- = Rs.1,72,326/-].

11.The amount awarded for loss of love and affection, in the

opinion of this Court, is high and this Court is inclined to reduce the

amount awarded under the said head. Accordingly, the amount

awarded for loss of love and affection is reduced to Rs.80,000/-

[Rs.40,000/- each] from Rs.1,00,000/-. The amount awarded for

funeral expenses and loss of estate, in the opinion of this Court are

just and reasonable and the same are confirmed. However, the

amount awarded for transportation to the hospital and for taking the

body, in the opinion of this Court, is not necessary and the same is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

deleted.

12.Accordingly, the compensation amount is re-assessed as

follows:

S.No. Description Amount Awarded Amount Awarded by the Tribunal by this Court

1. Loss of dependency Rs. 9,68,220/- Rs.17,23,260/-

2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-

3. Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 80,000/-

4. Transportation to the hospital Rs. 5,000/- ---

and for taking the body

5. Future prospects 10% --- Rs. 1,72,326/-

6. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-

                                  Total                              Rs.11,03,220/-           Rs.20,05,586/-


                                  13.The   appellants     are   entitled   to     total    compensation        of

Rs.20,05,586/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the

date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, out of which,

the first appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs and the second

appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,05,586/-.

14.The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The

judgment and decree dated 10.03.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.120 of

2018 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District

and Sessions Court, Ranipet, Vellore District, is modified to the above

extent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15.The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the modified/ enhanced award amount before the Tribunal,

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, less the amount if any, already deposited.

16.On such deposit being made, the first appellant is permitted

to withdraw her share as apportioned by this Court, along with

accrued interest and proportionate costs, on making proper and

necessary application before the Tribunal. The second appellant is

permitted to withdraw her share as apportioned by this Court, along

with accrued interest and proportionate costs, on making proper and

necessary application before the Tribunal and on production of