Madras High Court
Jayanthi vs Nehru on 8 June, 2023
CMA.No.1215 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A.No.1215 of 2013
1.Jayanthi
2.Minor Muthamizhselvi
3.Minor Vignesh
Respondents 2 and 3 rep by 1st appellant/mother ...Appellants
Vs
1.Nehru
2.The Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd.,
Rep by its Branch Manager,
No.11-3-100/1, Vairah Road,
Kammam – 607 001.
3.Kalyanasundaram
4.The National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep by its Branch Manager,
No.62, T.S.R.Big Street,
Kumbakonam Taluk and Munsif ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in
MCOP.No.823 of 2001 dated 19.07.2002 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Nagapattinam.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1215 of 2013
For Appellants : Mrs.K.P.P.Kuilmozhi
For Respondents : Mr.K.Vinod for R2
Mr.J.Chandran for R2
Mr.D.Bhaskaran for R4
No such person - R1
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated 19.07.2002
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge),
Nagapattinam in MCOP.No..823 of 2001
2. On 05.06.2001 at 10.00 a.m., while the deceased was travelling in
a van bearing Regn.No.TN-04-Y-9439 on the Tiruvaipadi main road, a lorry
bearing Regn.No.A.P.11/U-5137, came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the van, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries
and died in the accident and his daughter/2nd respondent sustained simple
injuries. Claiming that the deceased was an Assistant in the Tamilnadu
District Surveyor Office and earning about Rs.7393/- per month at the time
of accident and the driver of the lorry is solely responsible for the accident,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1215 of 2013
the appellants / claimants have filed a claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- to the deceased and Rs.50,000/- to the injured claimant.
3. The appellants unsatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award have preferred this
appeal seeking enhancement.
4. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned
award in OP.No.823 of 2001 and OP.No.824 of 2001 are Rs.6,76,370/- and
Rs.10,000/- respectively.
5. Before the Tribunal, the Appellants/claimants examined four
witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and filed seven documents which were marked as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the side of the second Respondent, neither witness was
examined nor document filed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel
for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants/Claimants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1215 of 2013
submitted that the order awarded by the Tribunal is unfair, unjust, arbitrary
and against the principles of fair compensation. The Tribunal is not correct
in using the multiplier scheme. He further submitted that the Tribunal having
found that the deceased was a Government servant and could have
considered the future increment and other promotional chances of the
deceased and the consequential monetary benefits to the dependants. Hence
the Tribunal has not considered the equitable compensation of claimants and
fixed the claims improperly. He further submitted that the Supreme Court
and this Court in several leading cases has held that the Tribunal should
have liberal approach in deciding the quantum after having found that the
driver of the lorry is responsible for the accident. The other reasons behind
the award of the Tribunal is not correct and liable to be set aside. Hence, he
prayed to enhance the compensation.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and
4 have submitted that the petition is devoid of merits. Moreover, the
compensation claimed by the appellants is highly excessive and baseless.
These respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
He further submitted that the Tribunal after analysing the evidences on
record, has rightly awarded the compensation to the appellants/claimants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1215 of 2013
and hence, the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any
interference by this Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.3696.50/- per month, deducting 2/3 of the income towards personal
expenses of the deceased, adopting the multiplier of '15', calculated the loss
of dependency on account of the death of the deceased and has arrived at a
sum of Rs.6,65,370/-. The Tribunal has relied upon the deposition of PW1
and Ex.P1/FIR, Ex.P7/AR copy, Ex.P3/Post-Mortem certificate, the Tribunal
has taken the age of the deceased as 40 years. On perusal of records, it is
seen that the Tribunal has not considered the evidences properly and the
documents marked. It is also seen that the deceased was the entire caretaker
of the family.
10. Taking note of the above submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellants / claimants, economic situation prevailing at the present time
and also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court fixed the
notional income of the deceased at Rs.7393/-per month and added 50% of
future prospectus which comes to Rs.7393+50% =11089/- and the same is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1215 of 2013
rounded off to Rs.11,100/- Since the age of the deceased was 40 years at the
time of accident, there is need to change the multiplier as 15. Further,
2/3rd of the salary has to be deducted towards personal expenses for
calculating loss of dependency. Thus the loss of dependency works out to
Rs.13,32,000/- (11,100 x 2/3 x 15 x12). Accordingly, the amount awarded
by the Tribunal towards 'loss of dependency' stands enhanced to
Rs.13,32,000/-. Similarly, it would be appropriate to enhance the award
under the head of loss of love and affection to the petitioners 2 and 3 to
Rs.15000/- each which would come to Rs.30,000/-, and also Rs.10000/-
towards funeral expenses. On perusal of records, it is seen that no
amount is awarded under the head of loss of estate for which they are
entitled to. Hence, this court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.10000/-
towards loss of estate. On perusal of records, it is also seen that the Tribunal
has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.5000/- towards consortium and the same
needs revisit. Hence, this court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.15000/-
under the head of consortium. However, the award amount of Rs.4000/-
granted under the head of pain and suffering is unwarranted and hence this
court is not inclined to grant any amount under the said head.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1215 of 2013
11.The details of the enhanced compensation are as under:
Heads Amount Award Amount by
awarded by the this Court (Rs.)
Tribunal (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 665370/- 13,32,000/-
(7393 + 50% x 2/3
x15x12)
Loss of love and ---- 30,000/-
affection to (15000 x 2)
petitioners 2 & 3
Consortium to the 5000 15000
1st appellant
Funeral Expenses 2,000/- 10,000/-
Loss of Estate ----- 10,000/-
Pain and sufferings 4000/- ------
Total 6,76,370/- 13,97,000/-
12. Thus, the appellants / claimants are entitled to the modified
compensation of Rs.13,97,000/-. It is made clear that for the enhanced
amount of Rs.13,97,000/-, the interest rate of 7.5% shall be calculated from
the date of filing of this appeal and interest rate of 9% before numbering
the appeal.
13.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
14. (i) The respondents 1 and 2, jointly and severally, are directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1215 of 2013
deposit the modified compensation as ordered above, less the amount if any
already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
(ii) On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer
the respective shares of award amount as per the ratio apportioned by the
Tribunal to the bank accounts of the first appellant along with accrued
interest through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereafter.
(iii) Insofar as the minor Appellant Nos.2 & 3 are concerned,
the Tribunal is directed to deposit their shares of award amount bearing
fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks till they attain majority
and the first Appellant/mother of the minors are permitted to withdraw the
interest accrued once in six months for the welfare of the minors. No costs.
15. Since the compensation amount now awarded is Rs.13,97,000/- ,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1215 of 2013
it is made clear that the claimants have to pay the appropriate Court fee in
order to receive the awarded amount.
Index : Yes/No 08.06.2023
Internet : Yes/No
gv
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
(Principal District Judge) Nagapattinam.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1215 of 2013
A.A.NAKKIRAN.,J.
gv
C.M.A.No.1215 of 2013
08.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
