Pushpalatha vs The Managing Director
2024 Latest Caselaw 518 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 518 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 January, 2024

Madras High Court

Pushpalatha vs The Managing Director on 8 January, 2024

C.M.A. No. 3525 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.01.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

C.M.A. No. 3525 of 2021

1. Pushpalatha
2. Minor. Mira Aravindh
[Minor appellant represented by his mother Pushpalatha,
the first appellant herein]
3. Vaidhehi
4. Balaji ... Appellants / Petitioners

Vs.
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Salem Limited,
No.12-Ramakrishna Raod,
Salem, Branch At Dharmapuri. ... Respondent / Respondent

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and Decree dated 04.01.2021 passed
in M.C.O.P. No.111 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal and Special District Court, Krishnagiri.

For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj
For Respondent : Mr.D.Nitin
for Mr.D.Venkatachalam

1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No. 3525 of 2021

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants

seeking quantum of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P. No.111 of 2020,

dated 04.04.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special

District Court, Krishnagiri.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to

hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the

Tribunal.

3. The petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the

deceased Lakshminarasimha Babu.

4. The only grievance raised in this appeal is that the notional

income fixed on the deceased is not in accordance with the norms followed

by this Court and eventhough the deceased herein Lakshminarasimhababa is

an electrician by profession and he is a skilled labour, the notional income

fixed by the Tribunal for awarding compensation needs to be enhanced.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed for

enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal after

considering the evidences placed on record and no income proof has been

produced, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the quantum of compensation.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides

and also perused the records.

7. It is true that the claimants were not able to prove the

monthly income of the deceased and eventhough they were able to produce

the Salary Certificate - Ex.P4 to show that he was the employer of one

Allwin Tech, Krishnagiri but no additional documents to support the

income of the deceased has been produced. However, the Tribunal has taken

note of his educational qualification, fixed the notional income of the

deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month. This Court has consistently following the

Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Andal and others vs. Avinav

Kannan and others [2019 (1) TN MAC 54 (DB)] by adopting the cost of

index, fixed the notional income of the person who were not able to prove

the income. Admittedly, in this case, the deceased was aged about 45 years

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

at the time of accident and was Electrician and Camera fitting Lineman

Technician, the Judgment of this Court cited supra, the applicable notional

income based on the cost of index is as follows:

S.No. Financial Year Cost of Inflation Index

for example: (Rs.6,500/- X 289) / 129 = Rs.14,562/- (notional income of the deceased)"

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8. Hence, this Court is inclined to modify the notional income

fixed by the Tribunal based on the dictum laid down in the Hon'ble Apex

Court judgment cited supra and the accident taken place in the year 2019-

2020 the income fixed as Rs.14,562/- and the same is calculated as follows:

                                   Date of accident                 = 21.04.2019
                                   Cost of Inflation index         = 289 (Financial Year 2019-2020)

Notional income of the deceased = (6,500/- x 289) / (129) = Rs.14,562/-

9. The Tribunal has rightly followed the dictum as laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi

and other [2017(2) TN MAC 609 (SC): 2017 (16) SCC 680] fixed 25% as

future prospectus and as per the Judment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma

and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others [2009 ACJ 1298

SC : 2009 (6) SCC 121], the multiplier is fixed as '14' by considering the

age of the deceased is 45 at the time of the accident. The dependants of the

deceased are four in number hence deduction of 1/4 made towards his

personal expenses. Hence loss of dependency is assessed as follows:

Annual income (Rs.14,562/- x 12) = Rs.1,74,744/-



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis



                     add Future prospects @ 25%                  = Rs.43,686/-
                     Yearly income of the deceased               = Rs.2,18,430/-
                     Yearly contribution to his family
                     (deduction of 1/4 = Rs.54,607.5/-
                     @ Rs.54,608/-)                              = Rs.1,63,822-
                     Applicable Multiplier '14'
                     (Rs.1,63,822 x 14)
                     Total Loss of dependency                    = Rs.22,93,508/-

10. As far as the compensation awarded under other heads are

concerned, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just compensation and this

Court is inclined to confirm the same. The notional income of the deceased

Lakshminarasimhababa alone is hereby modified.

11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed

and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.14,70,800/- is hereby

enhanced to Rs.24,86,028/- [Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Six

Thousand and Twenty Eight only] along with interest at the rate of 7.5%

per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition till the date of deposit,

excluding the default period, if any. The respondent - Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the amount now awarded by this Court along with

interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit

of M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri. On such deposit, the appellants

are permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court

along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, as

per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall disburse the

amount now awarded by this Court by directly giving credit to the Savings

Bank Account of the claimants. The share of the minor appellant is directed

to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank till the minor appellant

attains majority. On such deposit, the first appellant being the mother of the

minor appellant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three

months for the welfare of the minor appellant. Since this Court has enhanced

the compensation, the appellants/claimants are directed to pay the necessary

Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as

to costs in the present appeal.