Madras High Court
Violet Jeya Kumari vs Manuel on 10 October, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :10.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.M.A.(MD)No.75 of 2021
1.Violet Jeya Kumari
2.Veerammakutti Vinitha
3.Minor.Veeralakshmi
(Minor 3rd appellant through her mother
and next guardian 1st appellant herein)
... Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
1.Manuel
2.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Divisional Manager,
No.24/E/12A, Sivasakthi Shopping Complex,
S.N.High Road,
Tirunelveli,
(R1 called ex-parte before the trial Court
Hence notice dispense with) ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.528 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal Authority(Special Sub-Judge), Tirunelveli, dated 25.7.2019.
For Appellants :Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For R-2 :Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants
challenging the quantum of award passed in M.C.O.P.No.528 of 2015
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Authority(Special Sub-
Judge), Tirunelveli, dated 25.7.2019.
2. The appellants/petitioners filed in M.C.O.P.No.528 of 2015
seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of the first
appellant's husband and father of appellant's 2 & 3 by name
Subramanian. It is alleged in the petition that on 18.10.2014, at about
12.30 noon, when the deceased was travelling in a motor-cycle bearing
Registration No.TN-72-BA-0549 from Tirunelveli Junction to
Palayamkottai, near Thangamayil Jewellery shop at Palayamkottai, a
Maruti Car bearing Registration No.TN-72-C-4647, came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the motor-cycle. As a result, the
deceased Subramanian sustained head injuries and later died. The
deceased was running a Tea Stall in the name and style of Devi Tea
Stall and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The appellants
are depending on the income of the deceased. After his death, they are
left with no-one to take care of them and they find it very difficult to
make both ends meet. In the said circumstances, the appellants filed
the claim petition seeking compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
3. The second respondent filed counter opposing the claim of
the petitioners. It is alleged that rider of the two-wheeler was
responsible for the accident and the quantum of compensation claimed
was also excessive.
4. During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined
and Exs.P1 to 12 were marked. There was no oral or documentary
evidence produced on the side of the Insurance Company.
5. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary
evidence, arrived at a total compensation of Rs.12,40,000/-.
6. Being not satisfied with the award amount, the claimants
filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
that the appellants produced documents in the form of Bank Passbook,
professional tax receipts, Insurance Policy Premium Receipts and sale
deed in the name of the deceased to show that the deceased was
earning handsome monthly income. However, without considering these
materials, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
Rs.9,000/- without any basis. He prayed that the judgment of this
Court in Andal and others vs. Avinav Kannan and others reported
in 2019 (1) TN MAC 54(DB), may be followed for fixing the monthly
income of the deceased.
8. In reply, the learned counsel for the second
respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the quantum was
fixed, taking into consideration all the relevant particulars, especially,
the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellants. There
was no evidence produced to show that the deceased was earning a
sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In the said circumstances, fixation of
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- is just and appropriate.
He fairly conceded the liability of the Insurance Company in paying the
compensation amount to the claimants.
9. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused
the records.
10. The only point arises for consideration in this appeal is,
“Whether the quantum of compensation
awarded to the appellants/claimants is just and
appropriate, especially, the monthly income fixed by the
Tribunal for arriving at loss of dependency is correct or
not?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
11. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court
finds that the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.9,000/- for the reason that the appellants have not produced any
evidence to substantiate their claim that the deceased was earning a
sum of Rs.30,000/- or Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. If that
be the case, there is also no evidence for fixing the monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. In an accident happened in 2014, this
Court in Andal's case(cited supra), taking the monthly income arrived
at by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq vs. United India
Insurance Company Limited reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459(SC),
as a base and taking into consideration the raising price and inflation,
devised a formula, using the notional income of Rs.6,500/-, the Cost
Inflation Index, to fix the monthly income of the deceased. That formula
is as follows:
The Notional income fixed by the Cost of Inflation index for the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India X year 2013-2014
for the vegetable vendor ie.,
Rs.6,500 during the year 2007-2008
______________________________________________________________________
Cost of Inflation index for the year 2007-2008
12. Following this formula, in this case, if we calculate the
monthly income of the deceased, the calculation runs as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
6500 X 240
__________________ = Rs.12,093/-
The deceased was aged 47 years at the time of accident. In the light of
the decision in Smt.Sarla Verma .vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1(SC), 25% of Rs.12,093/- to be added
towards future prospects. 25% of this amount comes to Rs.3,023/- and
thus, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.15,116/- (12093 +
3023). Deceased is survived by three dependants. Therefore, 1/3rd of
this amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses. 1/3 rd of
this amount comes to Rs.5,039/- and 2/3rd amount is
Rs.10,077/-. Thus, monthly income of the deceased is fixed at
Rs.10,077/-. Proper multiplier for fixing the loss of dependency is “13”.
When calculated, it comes to Rs.15,72,012/- (10077 X 12 X 13). The
loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,72,012/-. Thus, this Court
enhances the loss of dependency from Rs.11,70,000/- to
Rs.15,72,012/-.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that
loss of consortium was awarded to the first appellant alone and not
awarded to appellants 2 and 3 and therefore, loss of consortium has to
be awarded to appellants 2 and 3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
14. The judgment reported in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 217(2) TN MAC 609
(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the claimants are entitled for
consortium under “Spousal Consortium, Parental Consortium and Filial
Consortium”. In this case, only spousal consortium to the first
appellant was given at Rs.40,000/-. No amount was awarded under the
head “loss of consortium” to appellants 2 and 3. They are also entitled
for loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each. The compensation
awarded under heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses are retained
and not disturbed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
S.No Description Amount Amount Award
awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. For loss of 11,70,000 15,72,012 Enhanced
dependency
2. For consortium 40,000 1,20,000 enhanced
(to 1st claimant) (Rs.40,000/-
each to all the
claimants)
3. For loss of estate 15,000 15,000 confirmed
4. For funeral 15,000 15,000 confirmed
expenses
Total Rs.12,40,000 Rs.17,22,012 By enhancing a
sum of
Rs.4,82,012/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
19. In the result,
(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, enhancing
the award of the Tribunal from Rs.12,40,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs
and Forty Thousand Only) to a sum of Rs.17,22,012/- (Rupees
Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Twelve Only) along with interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of
realisation and proportionate costs.
(ii) The apportionment made by the Tribunal is sustained.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced award amount with accrued interests and costs after
deducting the amount already deposited if any, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(iv) The major claimants are permitted to withdraw their
respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, with proportionate
interests and costs. In respect of minor claimant, her share shall be
deposited in any one of the nationalised banks in fixed deposit till she
attains majority. The mother and guardian of the minor claimant, is
permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months
directly from the bank, only for the welfare of minor. No Costs.
10.10.2023
pm
Index:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
To,
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Authority
(Special Sub-Judge),
Tirunelveli,
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
pm
C.M.A(MD)No.75 of 2021
10.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
