Madras High Court
Jayamani Philips (Since Deceased) vs J.Premkumar on 4 January, 2024
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
C.M.A.No.2719 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2024
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
C.M.A.No.2719 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.19433 of 2021
1. P.Anthonimary
2. P.Martin Sonia
3. P.Divya Nessy
4. P.James Clinton
Cause title accepted vide Court order
dated 05.10.2023 made in C.M.P.No.20021 of 2023
in CMA SR.No.60895 of 2019
Jayamani Philips (since deceased)
... Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
1. J.Premkumar
2. Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
1st Floor, Plot No.5, Ramachandra Street,
Saravanan Nagar, Seevaram,
Chennai 600 096. ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2719 of 2023
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Award and Decree dated 30.01.2018
passed in MCOP.No.6162 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Malaikannu
For R1 : Notice dispensed with
For R2 : M/s.R.Sree Vidhya
JUDGEMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed, challenging the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.6162 of
2012 dated 31.01.2018, the claimants are before this Court.
2. The brief facts are as follows:-
The appellants/petitioners are the wife and children of the
deceased Peter Thambi Durai. On 06.02.2012 at about 23.30 hours, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
first petitioner/appellant's husband was riding a two wheeler, bearing
Reg.No.TN-03-H-0226, he was hit by a Trailer Lorry, bearing
Reg.No.TN-03-9984, which came from opposite direction and rear right
wheel of the said trailer lorry ran over the deceased. Due to the said
accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
Thereafter, the appellants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal,
claiming a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, for the
purpose of awarding compensation under the head 'loss of income', the
Tribunal has applied split multiplier method instead of single multiplier
method, which is on lower side. Hence, he requested this Court to
enhance the same. Further, since no amount was awarded under the head
“Loss of love and affection”, he requested this Court to award the same.
He also sought for appropriate enhancement of the compensation towards
loss of estate and funeral expenses in favour of the appellants.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent/Insurance Company would fairly submit that as per the
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the split multiplier method
has been applied by the Tribunal for awarding compensation of the
deceased. Hence, he requests this Court to confirm the award passed by
the Tribunal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
6. The fact and manner of the accident is not disputed by the
parties. Therefore, this Court is not dealing with the said aspect. The
grievance of the appellants is with regard to the quantum of
compensation awarded under the head of 'loss of income' by the Tribunal
by applying split multiplier method instead of single multiplier. It is
settled that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record,
Tribunal or Court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and
should apply multiplier as per decision of Supreme Court in case of
“Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation“, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to adopt the multiplier as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (cited supra).
7. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 53 years and
earning a sum of Rs.29,100/- per month and adding 15% future prospects
and by deducting 20% towards income tax and the annual income of the
deceased would be a sum of Rs.3,59,264/-. Deducting 1/4th towards the
personal expenses of the deceased, by adopting the multiplier of 11 fixed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the loss of income to the family is worked
out as follows :-
Rs.3,59,264/- (annual income) * 11 (multiplier)
* 3/4 (dependency) = Rs.29,63,928/-
8. A sum of Rs.40,000/- has been granted to the first appellant
under the head of "loss of consortium", and a sum of Rs.15,000/- each
awarded under the heads of “loss of estate” and “loss of funeral
expenses”, which stands confirmed. Apart from that, no amount has been
awarded under the heads of “loss of love and affection” and
“transportation”. Therefore, this Court is inclined to award a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- each) towards loss of love and affection to the appellants 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to 4.
9. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified as under :-
Heads Awarded by the Awarded by this
Tribunal Court (Amount in
(Amount in Rs.) Rs.)
Loss of Income 21,61,992 29,63,928
Loss of love and affection in Nil 1,20,000/-
respect of apellants 2, 3 and
Loss of consortium to the 1st 40,000/- 40,000/-
appellant/wife
Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-
Transportation Nil 10,000/-
Loss of estate 15,000 15,000/-
Total 22,31,992 31,63,928
10. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
Award of the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation
amount from Rs.22,31,992/- to Rs.31,63,928/-. Since the 5th appellant
namely Jayamani Philips had expired and the appellants 1 to 4 are the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
legal heirs, they are entitled to get the compensation awarded to her
proportionately. Hence, the compensation will be awarded to the
claimants in the following proportions:
i) Wife of the deceased/1st appellant – Rs.22,63,928/-
ii) Children of the deceased/appellants 2 to 4 – Rs.3,00,000/- each
10. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the entire amount along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.6162 of
2012 on the file of Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai. Upon such
deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the entire amount
to the respective bank accounts of the claimants, by way of RTGS, within
a period of three weeks from the deposit or from the date of receipt of the
Bank details obtained from the claimants or application for withdrawal
from the claimant, whichever is later. The appellants/claimants are
directed to pay the necessary Court fee for the enhanced compensation
amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall not disburse the enhanced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
amount till such time the certified copy showing proof of payment of
Court fee has been produced by the claimants. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.01.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
jd
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,
jd
and
04.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
