Madras High Court
Royal Sundaram General Insurance ... vs Chinnappa on 25 July, 2023
C.M.A.No.367 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2544 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A. No. 367 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2544 of 2022
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Vishranthi Melaram Towers, 2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Karapakkam,
Chennai — 600 097. ... Appellant
Versus
1.Chinnappa
2. Parvathi
3. Subramaniyan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated
19.04.2021 passed in M.C.O.P. No.65 of 2018, by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Mannargudi.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For R1 & R2 : Mr.Swamisubramanian
for Mr.D.Lakshmipathy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A.No.367 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2544 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company
challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.
No.65 of 2018 dated 19.04.2021.
2.The respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2, who are the parents
of the deceased minor child had filed the claim petition stating that on
25.11.2017 at about 04.10 p.m., while the deceased was playing near the
main road, the car bearing registration No.TN 49 BK 8733, came in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result, the
minor child succumbed to the injuries. The minor child was aged about 5
years at the time of accident and thus, the claimants are entitled for
compensation.
3.The 3rd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-
parte before the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company filed
counter denying the averments made in the claim petition stating that in
any case the claim is excessive.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.367 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2544 of 2022
4.Before the Tribunal, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants examined
two witnesses on their side and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On behalf of
the appellant/Insurance Company, no one was examined and no
document was marked.
5.The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence
found that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and held that the
appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,38,870/- as
compensation to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants.
6.Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Insurance Company
had preferred the instant appeal challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
would submit that the method adopted by the Tribunal to compute loss of
income is erroneous. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.8,250/- per month and after awarding 40% future
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.367 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2544 of 2022
prospect, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.11,550/- per month. The Tribunal
further deducted 50% towards personal expenses and adopted multiplier
15. He would further submit that in the case of a minor, it is the
consistent view of this Court that consolidated annual income has to be
taken as notional income. The minor child is neither entitled for future
prospects nor there can be any deduction towards personal expenses.
Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the compensation awarded
has to be reduced.
8.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and
2/claimants would submit that though the method adopted by the
Tribunal is erroneous, the Tribunal had taken Rs.5775/- as monthly
income, which is just and reasonable. Further, learned counsel relied
upon the judgment of this Court made in C.M.A.No.3798 and 3547 of
2019, dated 13.07.2022, wherein this Court had taken notional income of
the deceased minor as Rs.5,000/- and added 40% future prospect.
Further, the learned counsel would submit that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection has
to be fixed at Rs.80,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.367 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2544 of 2022
9.The only question involved in the accident is whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. This Court
finds that the Tribunal computed loss of income by fixing the notional
income at Rs.8,250/- per month, added 40% future prospect and
thereafter, deducted 50% towards personal expenses. This approach of
the Tribunal is erroneous. This Court had consistently taken the view
that in the case of minor child, a consolidated annual income has to be
taken. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
would submit that for the accident took place in the year 2014, this Court
had taken Rs.45,000/- as annual income in C.M.A.No.4422 of 2019 dated
17.03.2021.
10.This Court is of the view that since the accident took place in
the year 2017, the notional income of the deceased can be taken as
Rs.60,000/- per annum and by applying multiplier 15, the claimants are
entitled for compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under the head of loss of
income. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
loss of income is reduced from Rs.10,39,500/- to Rs.9,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.367 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2544 of 2022
11.Further, a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards
loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.80,000/- for both claimants.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads are just
and reasonable and the same are confirmed. Thus, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S. No Description Amount Amount Award
awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of income 10,39,500 9,00,000 Reduced
2. Loss of 15,000 15,000 Confirmed
Consortium
3. Loss of Love 40,000 80,000 Enhanced
and Affection
4. Funeral 15,000 15,000 Confirmed
Expenses
5. Transportation 10,000 10,000 Confirmed
6. Medical Bills 2,19,370 2,19,370 Confirmed
Total 13,38,870 12,39,370 Reduced by
Rs.99,500/-
12.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.13,38,870/- is hereby reduced to Rs.12,39,870/- together with interest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.367 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2544 of 2022
at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The
appellant/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. Excessive amount if any
deposited by the appellant/insurance Company, the same shall be
withdrawn. On such deposit the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw a
sum of Rs.4,89,370/- and the 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw a
sum of Rs.7,50,000/- along with proportionate interest and costs, less the
amount if any, already withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.07.2023
rst
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To:
The Subordinate Judge,
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mannargudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.367 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2544 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
rst
C.M.A. No. 367 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2544 of 2022
25.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
