Madras High Court
Abirami vs M/S.Praveen Travels (P) Ltd on 13 June, 2023
CMA.No.1030 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :13.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A.No.1030 of 2014
and
MP.No.1 of 2014
1.Abirami
2.Vinayagammal ...Appellants
Vs
1.M/s.Praveen Travels (P) Ltd.,
39, Medavakkam Tank Road,
Kelly's, Chennai – 600 010.
2.United India Insurance Co.LTd.,
A.R.Complex 2nd Floor No.1090,
P.H.Road,
Chennai – 600 084 ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in
MACTOP.No.3190 of 2007 dated 31.07.2012 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai)
For Appellants : Mrs.Thenmozhi Shivaperumal
for Mrs.Sridevi Sreekanth
For Respondents : Vacated - R1
Mr.S.Arunkumar for R2
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1030 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated 31.07.2012
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Small Causes Court,
Chennai), in MACTOP.No.3190 of 2007.
2. On 04.05.2007 at about 18.15 hours, one Sundar, after
finishing his work, was proceeding in his bike bearing Regn.No.TN-09-AK-
5866 near Taluk Office, road opposite to All India Radio, Saidapet. At that
time, a private bus bearing Regn.No.TN-02-F-3714 drove the same in a rash
and negligent manner and hit the back of the bike. Due to the said impact,
the said Sundar sustained multiple injuries and died on the way to the
hospital. Claiming that the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident,
the claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum
of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the
documents and evidences. The Insurance Company has defended their case.
The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,35,600/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1030 of 2014
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 details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
impugned award are as follows:
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of pecuniary 7,95,600/-
benefits (3900x12x17)
Loss of love & affection 10,000/-
Loss of consortium 20,000/-
Funeral Expenses 10,000/-
Total 8,35,600/-
5. Before the Tribunal, the Appellants/claimants examined two
witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and filed ten documents which were marked as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On the side of the Insurance Company, two witnesses were
examined as RW1 and RW2 and filed five documents which were marked as
Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1030 of 2014
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
submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and
weight of evidence. The Tribunal failed to consider the monthly income for
the deceased as Rs.30,000/- as he was running a tailoring shop and a travel
agency. The Tribunal failed in awarding adequate compensation towards loss
of consortium to wife and loss of love and affection to the mother of the
deceased. It failed to note that according to the recent Supreme Court
judgment in which the Hon'ble Court stated that due to escalation of cost,
the worst affected persons are the lower income group and hence it ought to
have awarded the claim amount. It also erred in awarding Rs.10,000/-
towards funeral expenses irrespective of the fact that the high transportation
charges and electric cremation expenses and therefore the court ought to
have awarded Rs.20,000/-. It failed to note that as per the citation reported
in 2009 Act 1298, 50% has to be taken instead of 30% and moreover, as
far as the age of the deceased is concerned, it ought to have to consider 50%
instead of 30%. It failed to note that as per the reported judgment in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1030 of 2014
Supreme Court, the minimum salary of the person should be taken
Rs.10,000/- per month and even a coolie is drawing Rs.7000/- per month
and therefore how a tailor cum travel agent earned Rs.5850/- and therefore,
the Tribunal erred in its finding that the deceased was earning Rs.5850/- per
month and it ought to take Rs.10,000/- per month due to the prevailing
escalation of cost. The wife of the deceased married him against the wishes
of her parents and nobody is willing to help her in this pathetic condition
and she is living with her aged mother-in-law and hence Rs.20,000/- towards
consortium is too low. The Tribunal failed to note that the multiplying factor
must be fixed at 18 instead of 17 years and therefore the claimants are
entitled for enhancement of compensation. As far as the second appellant is
concerned, she lost her son who was the only earning member of the family.
The Tribunal, without appreciating the evidences properly, has awarded the
total compensation of Rs.8,35,600/- and the said quantum is unreasonable.
Hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
has submitted that the compensation claimed by the appellants is highly
excessive and baseless. He further submitted that the Tribunal after
analysing the evidences on record, has rightly awarded the compensation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1030 of 2014
the appellants/claimants 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 has relied upon Ex.P1/Marriage Certificate and
Ex.P2/driving license, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 30
years. Considering the age and earning capacity of the deceased, the
Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- per month,
adding 30% of the income towards future prospects, deducting 1/3 of the
income towards personal expenses of the deceased, adopting the multiplier
of 17 (4500 + 30%= 1350; 4500 + 1350 = 5850; 5850 – 1/3(1950) = 3900
; 3900 x 12x 17 =7,95,600/-), and has arrived at a sum of Rs.7,95,600/-
towards loss of pecuniary benefits.
10. On perusal of records, it is seen that the Tribunal has not properly
considered the evidences properly and the documents marked. Considering
the age of the deceased and economic situation prevailing at the present time
and also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered view that Rs.5500/- is to be taken as monthly income of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1030 of 2014
deceased. Since the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident,
there is need to change the multiplier as 17. Further, considering and age
and earning capacity of the deceased, 40% should be added towards future
prospectus and 1/3 has to be deducted towards personal expenses for
calculating pecuniary loss of income. If Rs.5500/- is taken as the monthly
income of the deceased, after adding 40% towards future prospectus of the
deceased and 1/3 of the amount is deducted towards personal expenses and
the multiplier of 17 is adopted, the loss of income works out to
Rs.10,47,132/- (5500 x 40 % = 2200), (5500 + 2200= 7700; 7700 - 1/3
=2567; 7700 - 2567 = 5133 x 12 x17 = Rs.10,47,132/-). Accordingly, the
amount awarded by the Tribunal towards 'pecuniary loss of income' stands
enhanced to Rs.10,47,132/-. Similarly, as per the Pranay Sethi case, it
would be appropriate to enhance the award under the head of loss of love
and affection to the second appellant to Rs.40,000/- and also under the
head of consortium to the first appellant to Rs.40,000/-, and also
Rs.15,000/- 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.15,000/-
towards loss of estate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1030 of 2014
11.The details of the enhanced compensation are as under:
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Pecuniary loss of 10,47,132/-
Income
Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
Loss of consortium to 40,000 /-
the first appellant
Loss of love & Affection 40,000/-
to the second appellant
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total 11,57,132/-
Rounded off to Rs.11,57,130/-
12. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced
compensation of Rs.11,57,130/-. It is made clear that for the enhanced
amount of Rs.11,57,130/-, the interest rate of 7.5% shall be calculated from
the date of filing of this appeal. The second respondent is directed to deposit
the award amount within a period of six weeks from the date of copy of this
judgement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1030 of 2014
13.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
14. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced 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. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal, in the same ratio
as awarded by it, is directed to transfer the award amount along with
accrued interest to the bank account of the appellants through RTGS within
a period of two weeks thereafter.
15. Since the compensation amount now awarded is Rs.11,57,130/-,
it is made clear that the claimants have to pay the appropriate Court fee in
order to receive the enhanced award amount.
Index : Yes/No 13.06.2023
Internet : Yes/No
gv
A.A.NAKKIRAN.,J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1030 of 2014
gv
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
(Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai)
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.1030 of 2014
and
MP.No.1 of 2014
13.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
