Madras High Court
Valliammal vs Abubakkar on 27 June, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.895 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD).No.895 of 2021
1.Valliammal
2.Palani ... Appellants
-Vs-
1.Abubakkar
2.The General Manager,
Cholamandalam MG General
Insurance Company Limited,
Dare House, 2nd Floor,
No.2, NSC Bose Road,
Chennai 600 001.
3.Rajendran ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram passed in M.C.O.P.No.164 of
2019, dated 25.02.2021 for enhancement of compensation.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Kumaravel
For R2 : M/s. K.R.Shivashankari
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.895 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram in M.C.O.P.No.164 of 2019, dated
25.02.2021, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of
compensation.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
The deceased was aged about 61 years and washerman by profession. On
05.12.2018, at about 5.00 p.m., when the deceased was riding his cycle in E.C.R.
Road, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the bus bearing Registration
No.TN 50 R 0011 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle. As
a result, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Hence, the petitioners filed the claim
petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
3. The petitioners are the wife and son of the deceased and the third
respondent is also the son of the deceased. It is the contention of the Insurance
Company before the Tribunal that the deceased suddenly crossed the road. As a
result, the accident had happened.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.895 of 2021
4. On the side of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to
P18 were marked and on the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary
evidence were marked.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, come to
the conclusion that only the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the
deceased succumbed to injuries. The negligent aspect has not been challenged by
the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased and his
profession, has fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-.
Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants for
enhancement of compensation.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that
despite the evidence on the side of the petitioners to prove the profession of the
deceased, the Tribunal has fixed only a sum of Rs.7,500/- as notional income,
which is very low. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.895 of 2021
deceased would have earned more than Rs.12,000/-. Therefore, the same has to be
enhanced.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance
Company would submit that the Tribunal has fixed the correct multiplier and at
the most it could be only Rs.9,000/-, beyond that it will not be enhanced.
8. In the light of the above submissions, now the point for consideration in
this appeal is whether the Tribunal is right in fixing the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.7,500/-.
9. Admittedly, the deceased was a washerman by profession and Ex.P8 has
been marked. Though the definite income of the deceased has not been
established, the fact remains that the person involved such a work requires some
skill and ordinary people may not be in a position to do such work. Considering
the same, this Court is of the view that the deceased would have earned minimum
Rs.12,000/- per month.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.895 of 2021
10. In such a view of the matter, considering the nature of the job run by the
deceased, this Court fixed the notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.
10,000/- per month and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses (Rs.10,000/- -
Rs.3,334/- = Rs.6,666/-). Thus, the total loss of income comes to Rs.5,59,944/-
(Rs.6,666/- x 12 x 7). Further, this Court awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards
loss of love and affection to the second petitioner as well as the third respondent.
In respect of the other aspects, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
11. The modified award amount is as follows:
Description Amount
Loss of income Rs.5,59,944/
Loss of love and affection to the Rs.80,000/-
second petitioner and the third
respondent
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
For funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.7,09,944/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.895 of 2021
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The second
respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. On such deposit, the first petitioner is
entitled to a sum of Rs.3,54,972/- and the second petitioner and the third
respondent are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,77,486/- each. No costs.
27.06.2023
akv
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
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.895 of 2021
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
akv
C.M.A.(MD).No.895 of 2021
27.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
