Madras High Court

Mrs.G.Mallika vs E.Subash on 30 June, 2023

                                                                                C.M.A.No.2151 of 2013

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED :    30.06.2023

                                                       CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

                                                C.M.A.No.2151 of 2013


                  1. Mrs.G.Mallika

                  2. P.Ganesan

                  3. G.Dhanalakshmi                                      ... Appellant

                                                           vs.

                  1. E.Subash

                  2. United Insurance Co. Ltd.
                     No.470 G.N.T. Road, Redhills,
                     Chennai – 52                                         ... Respondents


                  PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
                  Motor Vehicles Act, pleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
                  22.11.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.141 of 2009 on the file of Motor
                  Accident Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes) Chennai and enhance
                  the award amount.


                                    For Appellants   : Mr.M.Selvam for
                                                      Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
                                    For Respondents : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraaghavan for R2


                  1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  C.M.A.No.2151 of 2013

                                                     R1-Sd-NA



                                                    JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the

deceased Dhanasekar assailing the Judgment and decree passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes) Chennai in

M.C.O.P.No.141 of 2009 dated 22.11.2012 for enhancement of

compensation.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act and Rule 3 of M.A.C.T. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs

for the death of Mr.Dhanasekar in a road accident that occurred on

26.12.2008.

3. The Tribunal, after hearing both side arguments and upon

considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth, has granted

compensation of Rs.5,37,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of filing of the petition i.e. 30.12.2008 till the date of deposit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2151 of 2013

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would

strenuously contend that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at

Rs.5,000/- per month is very less. Considering the decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq, etc. Vs. Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 (SC),

wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the monthly income of a

Vegetable Vendor aged 24 years as Rs.6,500/- for the accident occurred in

the year 2008, the income of the deceased may be fixed as Rs.6,000/-.

Further, the Tribunal has added only 30% as future prospects. As observed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, 40% of the

income to be added as future prospects. He would further contend that the

Tribunal has adopted multiplicand of 13 is incorrect. He would also contend

that for funeral expenses and for consortium, no amount was awarded by

the Tribunal and hence, he prayed for enhancement.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/

Insurance Company would vehemently argue that in order to prove the

employment of the deceased, employer was not examined. No income

certificate was filed. For future prospects there must be some pleading

which is not there in the claim petition. The multiplicand adopted by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2151 of 2013

Tribunal is correct and he would state that the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is in order which needs no interference.

6. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both sides

and perused the entire material records.

7. It is the evidence of P.W.2 who is the injured that on 26.12.2008

at about 2.00 hours, while the deceased Dhanasekar along with him, was

riding the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.TN-05-K-1644 along 200 feet road,

from South to North at Retteri Signal, Kolathur, Chennai, a Tipper lorry

bearing Reg.No.TN-20-AT-9691, which came behind the motorcycle of the

deceased in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle, which

is not in dispute. The driver of the erred vehicle namely tipper lorry, has

been charge sheeted as per Ex.P.3.

8. As per Ex.P.4/Post-mortem certificate, the age of the deceased is

23 years and hence, the age of the deceased is fixed as 23 years. It has

been stated that the deceased was working as an Electrician in Pantalooms

Retail Industries Ltd., and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2151 of 2013

substantiate, the same, his course completion certificate is marked as

Ex.P.7 which shows that the deceased has completed ITI course in

Electricals. The date of accident is 26.12.2008.

9. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the income of a vegetable vendor aged

24 years as Rs.6,500/- per month for the accident that occurred in the year

2008. Therefore, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per

month as claimed.

10. As regards future prospects, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

standardized the details of future prospects to be added with income in

case of persons who are on a fixed salary in National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Vs. Pranay Sethi [reported in (2017) 2 TN MAC 609 (SC), wherein the

Apex Court held that for the age group of persons below 40 years, 40% of

the income to be added as future prospects while computing the monthly

income.

11. The multiplicand has to be selected as tabulated by the Hon'ble

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2151 of 2013

Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC). The proper

multiplicand to be applied for the age group of persons between 25 to 30

years is 17.

12 .The deceased happened to be a bachelor. Therefore, 50%

deduction to be made for personal expenses from the monthly income.

13 .Therefore, based on the aforementioned details the formula

emerges as follows;

i. The age of the deceased : 23 years

ii.The monthly income is fixed: Rs.6,000/- p.m.

iii. Future prospects :Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- +40%)

iv. Multiplicand to be adopted: 17

v. Personal expenses, to be deducted from the monthly income : 50% vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.8,56,800/- (Rs.8,400/-x12x17x50%)

14. For loss of estate, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2151 of 2013

15. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted for funeral expenses in addition to

the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and

Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130) has held that the parents who

lost their child are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the filial

consortium. Therefore, the father and mother of the deceased are granted

Rs.40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium.

17. With regard to other heads, the amount awarded by the Tribunal

is reasonable and needs no interference. Therefore, the Compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is reworked as tabulated below:

Sl. Description Amount Amount awarded Award No. awarded by by this Court confirmed or Tribunal enhanced or granted or reduced 1 Pecuniary Loss Rs.5,07,000/- Rs.8,56,800/- Enhanced 2 Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Enhanced 3 Love and Affection Rs.20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Confirmed (Rs.10,000/- each) 4 Loss of Estate -- Rs. 15,000/- Awarded 5 For loss of Filial -- Rs.80,000/- Awarded Consortium Total Rs.5,37,000/- Rs.9,86,800/- Enhanced

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2151 of 2013

18. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

from Rs.5,37,000/- to Rs.9,86,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of filing of the petition i.e. 30.12.2008 (except for the default period if

any) till the date of deposit.