Madras High Court
Chinnammal vs Krishnasamy on 23 March, 2023
C.M.A.(MD)No.311 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.311 of 2022
1.Chinnammal
2.Andisamy
3.Balamurugan ...Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
1.Krishnasamy
2.The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
D.No.1, Jeeva Jothi Buildings,
Salai Road,
Dindigul-624 001.
(Policy No.0907003114P104489803) ..Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation
made in M.A.C.O.P.No.341 of 2016 dated 18.12.2020 on the file of the Additional
District Court, Dindigul.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Pugalendhi
For R2 : No Appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.311 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur in M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2016 dated
18.12.2020, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.
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:-
(i)On 27.05.2015, at about 01.45 p.m., when the deceased was travelling
as a passenger along with the other passengers in the first respondent bus bearing
Registration No.TN-57-K-6868, the driver of the bus driven bus in a rash and
negligent manner and suddenly turned the bus at Pangampadi Privu, due to which
the deceased was thrown away from the bus and sustained head injuries and
succumbed to injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.311 of 2022
(ii)The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, the second and third
petitioners are the children of deceased and the fourth petitioner is the father of the
deceased. He was aged about 48 and he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per
month. Hence, the claim petition has been filed.
(iii)The respondent before the Tribunal took a stand that the deceased
jumped from the running bus and as a result of which he succumbed to injuries.
The accident had taken place only due to the negligent act of the deceased.
4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant P.W.1 and P.W.2 was
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. On the side of the respondents no
oral and documentary evidence had been marked.
5.The tribunal on appreciation of entire evidence available on record had
fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and awarded the
compensation as follows:
S.No. Description Amount
1. Loss of income Rs.7,74,444/-
2. Loss of consortium to the first Rs. 20,000/-
petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.311 of 2022
3. Loss of love and affection to
the 2nd to 4th petitioners each at Rs. 15,000/-
Rs.5,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
5. Loss of estate Rs. 2,000/-
6. Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.8,31,444/-
Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by
the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
6.I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also
perused the materials available on record.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
driver of the first respondent bus was negligent in driving the bus and FIR was
also registered against the driver of the bus. He was working as agricultural coolie
and load man. He was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand
Only) per month. The Tribunal without properly considering the the said fact, has
erroneously fixed the meagre amount of Rs.5,867/- per month as notional income
and deducted 1/3 instead of 1/4 as there are four claimants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.311 of 2022
8.Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the second
respondent.
9.In view of the above submission, now the point arises for consideration
in this appeal is:
(1) Whether Tribunal is right in fixing the notional income as
Rs.8,000/- and deducted 1/3 of the income towards his personal expenses?
(2) Whether the Tribunal is right is adopting the multiplier 11?
10.From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellants have not
produced any document to prove the income of the deceased. In such
circumstances, the notional income has to be fixed. Considering the claim of the
appellants with regard to the nature of work done by the deceased at the time of
death, this Court is of the view that the a sum of Rs.5,867/- fixed by the Tribunal
as notional income is too meagre. Similarly, the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3
instead of 1/4, when there are four claimants. The Tribunal erred in applying
multiplier 11 by taking the age of the deceased as 55 for arriving at loss of income
without considering the postmortum report under Ex.P2 and the same is hereby
set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.311 of 2022
11. In view of the same, considering all the materials on record, the
notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand
Only). As per Ex.P2, the age of the deceased is 48. Hence, the correct multiplier
to be applied for the age of 48 is 13. Since there are four claimants, 1/4 deduction
is applied and the amounts granted towards loss of consortium, loss of love and
affection to the claimants 2 to 4 and loss of estate are very meagre, therefore, same
are also enhanced.
12.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as given below:
S.No. Description Amount
1. Loss of income Rs.12,87,000/-
2. Loss of consortium to the first Rs. 40,000/-
petitioner
3. Loss of love and affection to
the 2nd to 4th petitioners each at Rs. 1,05,000/-
Rs.5,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
5. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
6. Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.14,67,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.311 of 2022
13.The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation
amount i.e., Rs.14,67,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand only)
as modified by this Court with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realization to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2016, on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Dindigul
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,
less the amount, if any already deposited. On such deposit, the first claimant is
entitled to a sum of Rs.7,67,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand
only), the second claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs only) and the second and third petitioners are entitled to Rs.2 lakhs each as
compensation. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the said amount, less the
amount if any already withdrawn, by making necessary application before the
Tribunal. No costs.
23.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.311 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Additional District Court, Dindigul.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
C.M.A.(MD)No.311 of 2022
23.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
