Madras High Court
Amutha vs M.Joseph Cyril Rajan on 10 March, 2023
C.M.A. (MD)No.90 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.90 of 2022
1.Amutha
2.Minor Ajitha
Minor Rep. by natural guardian
Mother Amutha
3.Minor Dhanush
Minor Rep. by natural guardian
Mother Amutha ... Appellants / Petitioners
Vs.
1.M.Joseph Cyril Rajan
2.G.Jaya Navis
3.The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Office at Assisi Complex, 1st Floor,
PWD Road,
Near Park, Nagercoil,
Nagercoil Village,
Agateeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
4.J.Boobala Krishnan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.90 of 2022
5.The New India Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Office at Aruguvilai Building,
North Car Street,
Nagercoil – 1,
Nagercoil Village,
Agateeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
6.Johnson
7.T.Chellathurai
8.The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Office at Assisi Complex, 1st Floor,
PWD Road,
Near Park, Nagercoil,
Nagercoil Village,
Agateeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehilces Act, against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2020 made in
M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Judge-
cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Sankar Prakash
For Respondents : Mr.J.S.Murali for R3 & R8
No Appearance for R1, R2 & R4 to R6
R7 – given up vide Memo in
USR 36296, dated 16.12.2022.
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.90 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Challenging the quantum fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-
Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, in
M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2018 dated 12.03.2020, the appellants – claimants have filed
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per
their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal, are as follows:-
The petitioners are wife, son and daughter of the deceased respectively. The
2nd and 3rd petitioners are minors. The deceased Sundaralingam, aged about 42
years, was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration
No.TN-74-Q-8902, which was driven by one Boobalakrishnan. At that time, a
Jeep, belonged to the 2nd respondent and insured with the third respondent, bearing
Registration No.TN-74-AA-8551, was driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the another two wheeler, bearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.90 of 2022
Registration No.TN-75-B-3647, which was coming behind the deceased's two
wheeler and in that impact, the said two wheeler dashed against the two wheeler,
in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased succumbed to
injuries. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim petition.
4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners two witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 21 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P.21.
On the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was marked.
5. Considering the evidence adduced and also considering the occupation of
the deceased that the deceased was doing Marble work, the Tribunal has fixed the
notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- and awarded the compensation as
follows:
S. Heads Amount
No
1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,60,000/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
3. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.13,30,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.90 of 2022
Aggrieved over the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellants /petitioners have filed this Criminal Appeal for enhancement of
compensation.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants / petitioners submitted
that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 42 years and he was
doing Marble Work and therefore, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is
very less and the minimum notional income should have been fixed more than Rs.
15,000/-, considering the nature of the work done by the deceased at the relevant
point of time.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 4 submitted that
as no records have been produced to prove the income of the deceased, the trial
Court fixed the notional income at Rs.9,000/-. He fairly submitted that there is no
dispute with regard to the negligence.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.90 of 2022
9. In view of the above submissions, the only point arise for consideration in
this appeal is whether the quantum fixed by the Tribunal is well-balanced and
required any interference?
10. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the deceased was involved in a
Marble laying work and aged about 42 years, which were proved before the trial
Court. It is relevant to note that laying of Marble work is required to some
expertise and the ordinary coolie cannot do such work. Some people, who have
some expertise in laying the Marble, can perform such duty and demand for such
work is also very high in the present scenario. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- is not proper and the
Tribunal ought to have fixed a sum of Rs.12,000/- as notional income, considering
the nature of the work done by the deceased. There is a huge demand for such
work in the construction field and easily, the persons, who are expert in laying the
Marble work, can get a sum of Rs.500/- per day. Therefore, this Court fixed the
notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-. If 25% is added as future
prospects, then the income would be at Rs.15,000/- [12,000 +3,000]. The Tribunal
has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, if 1/3rd is deducted, the income
would be at Rs.10,000/- [Rs.15,000-5,000]. The Tribunal has correctly applied the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.90 of 2022
multiplier '14' for the age group of 42 years and if the same is applied, the loss of
dependency would be at Rs.16,80,000/- [10,000 x 12 x 14]. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses, which are reasonable. Further, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is also
reasonable. However, the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of
love and affection to the petitioners 2 and 3. Therefore, this Court awarded a sum
of Rs.40,000/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3. Therefore, the modified
compensation are as follows:
S. Heads Amount
No
1. Loss of dependency Rs.16,80,000/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
3. Loss of Consortium to the 1st Rs. 40,000/-
petitioner
4. Loss of love and affection to the Rs. 80,000/-
petitioners 2 and 3 (Rs.40,000/- each)
5 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.18,30,000/-
The compensation is enhanced from Rs.13,30,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and
Thirty Thousand only) to Rs.18,30,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Thirty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.90 of 2022
Thousand only). Out of the said amount, the appellants / petitioners are entitled to
get a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- each as compensation.
11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The 3rd
respondent – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire enhanced
amount of Rs.18,30,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only)
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition
till the date of realization and costs within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited. The petitioners may
approach the Tribunal for withdrawal of the said amount, for filing necessary
application and if such an application is filed, the Tribunal shall pass orders for
withdrawal. The appellants are directed to pay the additional Court fee, if any,
payable by them. No costs.
10.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.90 of 2022
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Judge-cum
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.90 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
C.M.A.(MD)No.90 of 2022
10.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
