Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Vijaya on 17 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.402 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.402 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.5377 of 2024
The Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Madhava Complex 1st Floor,
New Natham Mile Road,
Narayanapuram,
Madurai Town and District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Vijaya
W/o.Late.Veeraiah
2.Kala
W/o.Late.Rasu
3.Minor.Hariharasudhan
S/o.Late.Rasu
4.Minor.Haritha
D/o.Late.Rasu
[Minor R3 & R4 are represented by their
guardian, next friend and mother, R2]
5.Subbukannu
S/o.Late.Rasu
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
C.M.A.(MD) No.402 of 2024
6.Selvaganapathy
S/o.Chokkalingam ... Respondents
[R6 given up]
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in
M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2020 dated 11.08.2022 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Court, Pudukottai.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
For R1 to R5 : Mr.H.Arumugam
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Since the findings on negligence and liability are not under
challenge, the facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are
unnecessary for the disposal of this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company,
submitted that the Tribunal had fixed the age of the deceased as 60 years
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
based on the postmortem report marked as Ex.P2, whereas the driving
licence marked as Ex.P6 shows the date of birth of the deceased as
05.09.1943, and therefore, the deceased was 76 years old at the time of the
accident; and that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is thus erroneous
and therefore prayed for reduction of the compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the first to fifth respondents/claimants
submitted that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal was meagre, and
the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal was also meagre; that
the second to fourth respondents/second to fourth claimants were awarded
meagre compensation under the head 'loss of consortium', and therefore
prayed for an enhancement of compensation.
5. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is whether
the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation.
6. Though Ex.P2, the postmortem report, suggests that the deceased
was 60 years old, this Court finds from Ex.P6, the driving licence of the
deceased, that he was born on 05.09.1943 and was 76 years old at the time
of the accident. The age mentioned in Ex.P2, the postmortem report, is an
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
approximate age determined by the doctors and cannot be the basis for
fixing the age of the deceased in light of the other evidence on record.
Therefore, this Court holds that the age of the deceased was 76 years at
the time of the accident.
7. However, this Court finds that the notional income fixed by the
Tribunal at Rs.7,500/- per month is meagre, though the deceased was 76
years old. It appears that the deceased was the only male member of the
family and was survived by the wife, the daughter-in-law, and the minor
grandchildren. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that a sum
of Rs.10,000/- per month can be fixed as notional income of the deceased.
1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses. The multiplier
applicable is 5. Hence, the compensation under the head 'loss of income'
would be Rs.4,50,000/- (10,000 x 12 x 5 x 3/4).
8. The total compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
to the second to fourth claimants under the head 'loss of love and
affection' is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as
each of them is entitled to Rs.40,000/- and hence, the same is enhanced to
Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3).
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The compensation under the other heads is just and reasonable.
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
Sl. Heads Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed,
the Tribunal this Court reduced,
enhanced or
granted
1 Loss of Income Rs.6,68,196/- Rs.4,50,000/- Reduced
2 Loss of consortium to Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Confirmed
the first claimant
3 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed
4 Loss of love and
affection to the second Rs. 40,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- Enhanced
to fourth claimants
5 Loss of love and Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Confirmed
affection to the fifth
claimant
6 Transport Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Confirmed
7 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed
Total Rs.8,28,196/- Rs.6,90,000/- Reduced by Rs.
rounded off to 1,38,200/-
Rs.8,28,200/-
10. The appellant, Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the
aforesaid modified amount of Rs.6,90,000/- together with interest at 7.5%
per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and costs, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
11. The first to fifth respondents are entitled to the compensation as
per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal.
12. The first, second, and fifth respondents are permitted to
withdraw their shares along with the interest and costs, less the amount
withdrawn, if any, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal.
13. Since the third and fourth respondents are minors, their shares
are directed to be deposited in an interest-bearing fixed deposit [F.D.] in
any nationalized bank until they attain majority. The first respondent, who
is their natural guardian, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest
once every six months.
14. The appellant, Insurance Company, is permitted to withdraw the
excess amount already deposited, if any, together with interest, by filing
suitable application before the Tribunal.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
17.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
Copy To:
1.The Additional District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
and
17.10.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
