Madras High Court
Rathna vs Shivaji Patro on 10 July, 2023
C.M.A.No.2024 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.M.A.No.2024 of 2018
1.Rathna
2.M.Murthy
3.M.Parimala
4.M.Sakthivel ...Appellants
Vs
1.Shivaji Patro
2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,
ICICI Lombard House,
414, Veer Sharkar Marg,
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2016 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1936 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge, Dharmapuri.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Sathiaseelan
For R2 : Mr.R.Sreevidhya
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2024 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree dated 20.04.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.1936 of 2014 on the file of the
Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Dharmapuri.
2.The appellant/claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.1936 of 2014 on the file of the
Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Dharmapuri, claiming
a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Muniappan, who
died in the accident that took place on 30.09.2013.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence,
held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay a
sum of Rs.13,84,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% as compensation to
the appellants/claimants under following heads:
S.No Description Amount awarded by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2024 of 2018
Tribunal
(Rs)
1. Loss of Income 11,34,000
2. Loss of Consortium 1,00,000
3. Loss of Love & Affection 1,00,000
4. Funeral Expenses 25,000
5. Transportation 25,000
Total 13,84,000
4.Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the
appellants/claimants filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of
compensation.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
appellants/claimants are the wife and three children of the deceased. As per the
postmortem report, the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident.
The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-, in the
absence of any income proof for the accident occurred in the year 2013, which is
very meager. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq vs.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance reported in 2014 1 TNMAC 459
(SC), awarded a sum of Rs.6,500/- for the vegetable vendor for the accident took
place in the year 2008. In the present case, the deceased was working as
building sub-contractor and agriculturist and therefore, he prayed to fix the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2024 of 2018
notional income of the deceased as Rs.13,000/- by considering the cost inflation
index, though initially he suggested to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-.
6.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent
would submit that a sum of Rs.12,500/- would be just and fair to fix as a
notional income of the deceased. She would further submit that the age of the
deceased at the time of accident was 50 years as per the ration card. However,
the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 45 years as per the postmortem
report and awarded compensation.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the 2nd
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
8.Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for either parties and considering the nature of avocation of the
deceased and the cost inflation index, this Court is inclined to fix the notional
income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/-. Though as per the ration card the age of
the deceased was 50 years, the Tribunal considering the postmortem report took
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2024 of 2018
the age of the deceased as 45 years, which do not need any interference. Further,
for the age of 45 years the multiplier applicable is 14 as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & another reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC. As held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Ins. Co. v. Pranay Sethi &
others reported in 2017(2)TNMAC 609 (SC), the future prospect for the age
group of 45 years is 25%. Since there are four legal heirs for the deceased, 1/4 th
has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, the loss of income
computed as follows:
Rs.12500 /- - 1/4 = Rs.9375/-
Rs.9375/- + 2343.75 (25% of Rs.9375) x 12 x 14 = Rs.19,68,750/-.
9.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of
loss of consortium, which is on the higher side. As held by in the case of Pranay
Sethi stated supra, the wife is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium and the same is re-fixed as Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection for the children and
the same is meager. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram Allias Chuhru Ram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2024 of 2018
and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the children are entitled for a sum
of Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium and hence, the same is re-fixed as a
sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the appellants 2 to 5. Further, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation
respectively, which is on the higher side and therefore, this Court re-fix the
amount awarded towards funeral expenses at a sum of Rs.15,000/- and a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards loss of estate and this Court award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-determined as
follows:
S.No Description Amount awarded by Amount awarded
Tribunal (Rs) by this Court (Rs)
1. Loss of Income 11,34,000 19,68,750
2. Loss of consortium for 1,00,000 40,000
spouse
3. Loss of parental consortium 1,00,000 1,20,000
4. Funeral expenses 25,000 15,000
5. Transportation 25,000 10,000
6. Loss of Estate - 15,000
Total 13,84,000 21,68,750
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.13,84,000/- is hereby enhanced to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2024 of 2018
Rs.21,68,750/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realisation. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay
necessary court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. The 2 nd
respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award
amount along with interest and costs now determined by this Court, less the
amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the Tribunal is directed to
transfer the award amount to the appellants/claimants by way of RTGS to their
bank account directly, within a period of three weeks from the deposit being
made or from the date of furnishing the RTGS particulars by the
appellants/claimants, whichever is later. On such deposit, the 1st appellant is
permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.12,68,750/- and the appellants 2 to 4 are
permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each along with proportionate
interest. No costs.
10.07.2023
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
rst
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2024 of 2018
rst
To:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum
Special District Judge, Dharmapuri.
C.M.A.No.2024 of 2018
10.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
