Madras High Court
Smt.Sarasu vs Kanagamani on 6 July, 2023
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
1.Smt.Sarasu
2.Minor Uma
3.Minor Jayaseelan … Appellants /
Respondents No.3 to 5
(Minors represented by N/F Guardian
Mother Smt.Sarasu).
vs.
1.Kanagamani
2.Minor Mohanraj
(Rep.by N/F Guardian Mother Kanagamani)
Marayee (since deceased) … Petitioners/Claimants
3.Nachimuthu
4.M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Konghu Complex,
34/5, Bye Pass Road;
Dharapuram Town and Taluk
Erode District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2016
made in M.C.O.P.No.1468 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Kuppusamy
For Respondents : Mrs.A.Salomi
for Mr.C.Ramesh Babu [R4]
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The respondents No.3 to 5 have filed the appeal assailing the
judgment and decree passed in MC.O.P.No.1468 of 2002 on 23.12.2016
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem for
enhancement of compensation.
2. Originally, the claim petition was filed by one Tmt.Kanagamani
along with his minor son Mohanraj and mother of the deceased Kumar,
Tmt.Marayee against the owner of the lorry, its insurer and against the
present appellants herein under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of Kumar during the road
accident that occurred on 01.05.2002.
3. The Tribunal after hearing both sides arguments and upon
consideration of oral and documentary evidence has awarded
compensation for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the claimants
and respondents 3 and 5 in the claim petition. The claim was dismissed as
against the 4th respondent/Ms.Uma.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
4. The learned counsel for the appellants/respondents
Shri.K.Kuppusamy, would vehemently argue that the deceased was
working as a mason and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. Future
prospects of 40% may be awarded for the purpose of calculating the
income of the deceased. As regards 1/3rd deduction of the income may be
taken for calculation of loss of dependency and prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 4 th
respondent/Insurance Company would strenuously contend that the 1st
appellant not being the wife of the deceased Kumar cannot maintain the
appeal and prayed for to dismiss the appeal.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both sides and
perused the entire materials available on record.
7. This appeal is preferred only for enhancement of compensation
and the apportionment done by the Tribunal is not challenged.
8. The case of the claimants is that the husband of the 1 st claimant,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
Kumar on 01.05.2002 at about 4 p.m., while he was riding his bicycle near
Sreenivasa Park along the market road, a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-57-Z-
5140 which came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent
manner at a great speed, dashed against the said Kumar, by which his
head got crushed and he died on the spot, is not in dispute.
9. The claim petition was filed by one Smt.Kanagamani, wife of
Kumar along with her minor son and mother-in-law as against the owner
and insurer of the erred vehicle as the respondents 1 and 2 and one
Smt.Sarasu and her children, Ms.Uma and minor Jayaseelan have been
arrayed as respondents 1 to 5.
10. On a careful perusal of the judgment, the Tribunal has discussed
about the marriage of Kumar and who is the legally wedded wife and other
related issues. On the side of the claimants as well as on the side of the
respondents No.3 to 5, oral and documentary evidences have been let in.
Relying upon the said details, the Tribunal has rightly come to the
conclusion that the 1st claimant Kanagamani is the legally wedded wife of
Kumar. That apart, the 1st claimant has not preferred any appeal against
granting of compensation in favour of the respondents No.3 and 5 namely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
Sarasu and minor Jayaseelan. Therefore, the maintainability issue raised by
the learned counsel for the 4th respondent/Insurance Company is not
maintainable in law and stands rejected.
11. It is the evidence of PW1 that the deceased Kumar was working
as a mason and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. The accident had taken
place on 01.05.2002. Therefore, this Court deems fit to fix the income of
the deceased at Rs.3,400/- p.m. With regard to the age of the deceased,
the only document which is marked as Ex.P2-Post-Mortem Certificate,
wherein his age is mentioned as 36 years and it is taken as such.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has standardised the details of
future prospects to be added with income in respect of person who is self-
employed or on a fixed salary in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC),
wherein, for the age group of persons below 40 years, 40% to be added as
future prospects, while calculating the monthly income. With regard to the
deductions for personal and living expenses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has given in specific terms in Smt.Sarla Verma & Ors., v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Another reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
the deceased left behind his family members 2 to 3, then, 1/3rd can be
deducted for personal and living expenses from the income computed. At
the time of death he left behind his mother, wife and son. In the said case,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also tabulated with regard to the selection
of multiplicand, corresponding age groups have been given. For the age
group of persons between 36 to 40, the appropriate multiplicand to be
adopted is 15. Based on the above said details, for loss of dependency, the
formula emerges as follows:
Age of the deceased : 36 years
Multiplier to be adopted : 15
Monthly income fixed : Rs.3,400/-
Future Prospects : 40%
Notional Income Arrived at : Rs.3,400/- + 40%
Rs.4,760/-
After deducting 1/3rd for
Personal Expenses : Rs.3,173/-.
Loss of Dependency
Rs.3,173/- X 12 X 15 : Rs.5,71,140/-
13. An amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards Loss of Estate. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
1st appellant herein is arrayed as 3rd respondent. She has been examined
as RW1. It is the evidence of 1st appellant namely Sarasu that she got
married one Mahalingam and through him, a female child by name Uma
was born to her and she married the deceased Kumar thereafter. It is the
evidence of RW2 Smt.Arani that she does not know when Sarasu and
Kumar got married. She feels ignorant of the place of marriage also,
therefore, the Tribunal held that the 1st appellant/Sarasu is not a legally
wedded wife of Kumar. In all other aspects, the amount awarded by the
Tribunal appears to be reasonable, therefore, needs no interference.
Therefore, the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reworked as
tabulated below:
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No. awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
granted or
reduced
1 Loss of Income Rs.3,60,000/- Rs.5,71,140/- Enhanced
2 Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Confirmed
3 For Consortium to the Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Confirmed
1st petitioner
4 Loss of love and Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Confirmed
affection to the 2nd
petitioner
5 Loss of Estate NIL Rs. 15,000/- Granted
Total Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.6,26,140/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
14. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.6,26,140/- which would carry interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum. It is made clear that the apportionment made by the
learned Tribunal is not questioned and the apportionment made by the
Tribunal stands confirmed.
15. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
(ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.6,26,140/-.
(iii) The 4th respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced compensation amount i.e., Rs.6,26,140/- (less the amount
already deposited if any) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.1468 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
(iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants are at liberty to
withdraw the same as per apportionment made by the Tribunal after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
following due process of law. The claimants are directed to pay the Court
fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below
shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of the certified copy
showing proof of payment of Court fee by the claimants.
06.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
ssn
To:
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Salem.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
R.KALAIMATHI, J.,
ssn
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2774 of 2019
06.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
