Madras High Court
S.Krishnasamy vs A.Sagayaraj on 27 July, 2023
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 27.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
amd CMP(MD).Nos.999 of 2017 and
CMP(MD).Nos.2057 and 2061 of 2022
1.S.Krishnasamy
2.K.Manimegalai
3.S.Nandini
4.S.Parkavi
5.S.Keerthana ...Appellants
(Minor appellants 4 and 5 declared as major
and guardianship of their mother/3rd appellant
is discharged vide Court order dated 27.07.2023)
/Vs./
1.A.Sagayaraj
2.The United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Represented by its Divisional Manager
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
South Street, Thanjavur ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Appeal - filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1989, to set aside the award dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Additional
District Court cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur in
MCOP.No.715 of 2006 so far as it relates to the quantum of loss of
income and to fix Rs.20,00,000/- towards loss of income in addition to
the amount already fixed.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar
For Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.)
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation of the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur in MCOP.No.715 of 2006. The
claimants are the parents, wife and minor children of one
K.Sundaramoorthy who had passed away in motor accident that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
occurred on 09.05.2006.
2.According to the claimants, the deceased was working as
an Assistant Engineer in TWAD Board, Government of Tamil Nadu
and he was aged about 44 years at the time of his death.
3.The claimants have contended that while the deceased
was driving a two wheeler, a lorry belonging to the first respondent
was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
two wheeler, in which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and
he passed away. The claimants have prayed for a sum of
Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.
4.The owner of the lorry who was arrayed as the first
respondent had filed a counter disputing the rashness and negligence
on the part of the driver of the lorry and also the quantum of
compensation. The insurer of the lorry had filed a counter disputing
the manner of accident and the quantum of compensation.
5.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence submitted on either side, had arrived at a finding that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving
on the part of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal had relied upon
Exhibit P12-salary certificate, to arrive at a finding that the deceased
was drawing a sum of Rs.21,861/- per month as salary and he was
about to retire on 30.06.2019. The Tribunal has finally awarded a
sum of Rs.28,14,255/-. Aggrieved over the award, the present appeal
has been filed by the claimants.
6.According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the
deceased was working as an Assistant Engineer in TWAD Board and
he was drawing a salary of Rs.21,861/- at the time of his death. After
the award was passed, the pay scale of the deceased was revised as
per VI pay commission with effect from 01.01.2006. As per new pay
scale, the deceased would be drawing a salary of Rs.27,720/- with
effect from 01.01.2006, that is four months prior to the date of the
accident. The revised pay scale was implemented by the proceedings
of the Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Thanjavur dated
23.02.2010 which is subsequent to the passing of the award. Hence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
the claimants have filed CMP(MD).No.999 of 2017 to receive the
said communication relating to pay fixation based on VI pay
commission as additional evidence.
7.The learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance
Company has no objection for receiving the said proceedings as
additional evidence. This Court is inclined to allow the said
application as additional evidence. Accordingly, CMP(MD).No.999
of 2017 stands allowed.
8.If the revised monthly salary of the deceased is taken as
Rs.27,720/-, the award of the Tribunal under the head of loss of
income would get modified as follows:
(i)The revised monthly salary of the Rs.27,720/-
deceased as per VI pay commission
(ii).Annual Income Rs.3,32,640/-
(iii).After deducting 1/3rd towards his
Rs.2,21,760/-
personal expenses
(iv) 30% of actual salary towards
future income Rs. 99,792/-
(Rs.3,32,640 x 30%)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
(v) Total loss of income Rs.3,21,552/-
(vi)Since the age of the deceased is
44, multiplier of 15 is applied.
(15x Rs.3,21,552/-) Rs.48,23,280/-
(vii)The amount awarded by the Rs. 60,000/-
Tribunal under other conventional
heads
Total Compensation Rs.48,83,280/-
9.In view of the above said deliberations, the award of the
Tribunal namely Rs.28,14,255/- is hereby enhanced to
Rs.48,83,280/-.
10.It is seen from the records that appellants 4 and 5
herein/Claimants 4 and 5 were minors then and attained majority during
the pendency of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Therefore, the
guardianship of their mother Mrs.S.Nandini is discharged. Accordingly,
CMP(MD).Nos.2057 and 2061 of 2022 are allowed.
11.The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation of Rs.48,83,280/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the
date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already
deposited, if any, to the credit of the claim petition within a period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, 3rd claimant shall be entitled to 75%, 4th and 5th claimants
shall be each entitled to 11%. Claimants 1 and 2 shall be each
entitled to 1.5% of the award amount. The claimants are permitted to
withdraw the entire amount with interest by filing an appropriate
application before the Tribunal.
12.In view of the above said discussion, this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent as stated above.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
allowed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
27.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
To:
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge
Thanjavur
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2017
and CMP(MD).Nos.999 of 2017 and
CMP(MD).Nos.2057 and 2061 of 2022
Dated:
27.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
