Madras High Court
Priya vs Vinothkumar on 28 October, 2024
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
C.M.A.(MD).No.555 of 2023
& C.M.A.(MD).No.474 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A.(MD).No.555 of 2023
and
C.M.A.(MD).No.474 of 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.555 of 2023:
1. Priya
2. Minor Mercy Jacob
( The Minor petitioner rep. by her mother
and natural guardian of the 1st petitioner) ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Vinothkumar
2. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
No.6, 1st Floor, West Veli Street,
Madurai-1.
3. Jacob
4. Esther ... Respondents
(R-1 Ex-party before the Trial Court.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.555 of 2023
& C.M.A.(MD).No.474 of 2023
Hence, notice may be dispensed with)
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying to enhance the compensation amount in favour of the
Appellants herein in M.C.O.P.No.1535 of 2018 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court to deal with the Motor
Accidents Cases, Madurai dated 08.11.2022 and allow this appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Kumaravel
For Respondents : No appearance for R2, R3 & R4
: R1 – Ex-parte
C.M.A.(MD).No.474 of 2023:
Priya ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Vinothkumar
2.The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
No.6, 1st Floor, West Veli Street,
Madurai-1. ... Respondents
(R1 Ex-parte before the Trial Court. Hence, notice
may be dispensed with)
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.555 of 2023
& C.M.A.(MD).No.474 of 2023
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying to enhance the compensation amount in favour of the
Appellant herein in M.C.O.P.No.1534 of 2018 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court to deal with the Motor
Accidents Cases, Madurai, dated 08.11.2022 and allow this appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Kumaravel
For Respondents : No appearance for R2
: R1 – Ex-parte
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.]
The claimants in the M.C.O.P.Nos.1534 and 1535 of 2018, filed
these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A(MD).Nos.555 and 474 of
2023, challenging the fixation of negligence of 50% on the deceased and to
enhance the quantum granted by the learned trial Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The appellants in C.M.A.(MD).No.555 of 2023 are the wife and
minor child of the deceased Karl Jacob. The deceased Karl Jacob was a
practicing advocate in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The first
appellant entered into wedlock with the said Karl Jacob and out of the said
marriage, the second appellant was born. The said Karl Jacob had love
marriage with the first appellant and her house was situated in Virattipatthu,
some distance away from the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. On
17.03.2017 at 04.00 pm, while, the deceased was riding his two wheeler
bearing registration number TN-01-P-8449 in Goripalayam-Kalpalam one
way road, to reach the house of the first appellant near Meenakshi college,
the auto proceeding before suddenly stopped in the middle of the road and
in result, even though the deceased drove his two wheeler with all
precaution, he was unable to stop it and hit the said auto. After the hit, all
the persons fell down from the two wheeler. In result, the deceased even
though wore the helmet, sustained head injuries. The first appellant
sustained the injuries over her leg and all over the body and the child also
sustained minor injuries. The deceased was taken to Rajaji Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hospital and was declared dead. Thereafter, the first appellant was admitted
in Meenakshi Mission Hospital on 20.03.2017 and thereafter, she was taken
to Jeyam Hospital. She was taking treatment as outpatient till the filing of
the claim petition.
3. Therefore, the first appellant filed the claim petition claiming
compensation for the deceased husband along with the dependent, namely,
minor child and impleaded her father-in-law and the mother-in-law as third
and fourth respondents, on account of the strained relationship. The first
appellant also filed a separate M.C.O.P.No.1535 of 2018, for her personal
injury sustained by her in the said accident.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent insurance company
filed the counter denying the allegation and also denied the negligence on
the part of the auto driver and he sought for the dismissal of the claim
petition. Further, in the counter, the appellant specifically denied that due to
the rash and negligence, the deceased hit the ongoing auto and hence, the
insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The parents of the deceased filed the counter afffidavit denying the
marriage that took place between the first appellant and the deceased.
Further, strangely the parents of the deceased took a stand that there was no
marriage at all and they also claimed the entire compensation for them. They
also declared that they were claiming more compensation on the ground that
after his demise, huge liability was incurred on the account of the non-
payment of the car loan borrowed by the deceased, even if the marriage was
accepted.
6. In the said circumstances, to prove the case, on the side of the
appellant, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 were
marked. The father of the deceased also examined as R.W.1 and marked the
marriage invitation and the driving license of the deceased and other
documents. On the side of the Court, Ex.C1 disability certificate of the
appellant in C.M.A(MD).No.474 of 2023, was filed and exhibited X1 and
X2 also marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. After considering the entire aspect, the learned Tribunal judge
fixed the negligence 50-50 upon the auto driver and the deceased, on the
ground that no sufficient distance was maintained by the deceased. The
learned trial judge took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-
and calculated the loss of income only to the extent of Rs.30,24,000/-. The
total amount of Rs.32,20,261/- was awarded.
8. So far as the injury case, namely, for the appellant Priya, is
concerned, they granted only Rs. 2,26,034, by passing the impugned order.
The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-to the parents of the
deceased Rs.50,000/- each. Challenging the same, the appellants filed this
appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants in C.M.A.(MD).No.555 of
2023, has made the following submissions:
(i) to prove the negligence on the part of the auto driver, the injured
claimant P.W.1 was examined and independent witness P.W.2 also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examined and the FIR was registered against the auto driver and the final
report also was filed against the auto driver. There was a clear evidence that
due to the negligence of the auto driver only, the accident happened. Hence,
fixing the 50% negligence, on the part of the deceased without any evidence
is against law.
(ii)He further stated that because of the sudden stopping of the auto
by the auto driver, the accident happened. It is common that auto drivers
always stop the vehicle in the middle of the road in order to pick up the
passengers.
(iii)In such circumstances, the learned trial judge fixing 50%
deceased is against law. He further stated that the deceased being an
Advocate after enrolment in the year 2007, was practicing under the learned
senior Jacob, and other associates.
(iv)He was practicing in the high court and filing number of cases,
both on civil and criminal side. For which, he produced number of case
details and also he contributed for the release of the book by his senior
advocate. Considering all aspect, the learned trial judge ought to have fixed
the monthly income of the deceased above Rs.70,000/- but fixed only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.15,000/-. But the same was against the record. Even the documents show
that he was regularly appearing before the Madurai bench for filing number
of cases.
(v)From the year 2010 onwards, he was filing number of cases. In the
said circumstances, the award amount by fixing the monthly income as
Rs.15,000/- is very low and the appeal is made for fixing more monthly
income, namely, above Rs.50,000/-. He has also relied the division bench
judgment of this court, in which, the monthly income of the advocate,
having practicing experience of fifteen years or more is declared as
Rs. 35,000/-.
(vi)In this case, the petitioner Advocate is having practicing
experience for more than the 15 years and hence, she seeks for fixing a sum
of Rs.35,000/- as monthly income.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant in C.M.A.(MD).No.474 of
2023 has made the following submissions:
(i) the appellant in C.M.A.(MD).No.474 of 2023 injured claimant,
was admitted in the various hospitals for treatement. The medical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
expenditure incurred by her was more than her financial position. Besides
the financial burden, she has undergone numerous problems after the
accident. Hence, the awarded amount of Rs. 2,26,000 /- is not as per law,
providing compensation to the affected litigants. Sheseeks for enhancement
of the awarded amount.
(ii)She has sustained multiple injuries. Even though the medical
board has assessed the disability as 9%, the impact of the loss of earning is
more than the 9%. Due to the accident, she is unable to do any work, even
continue her earlier job. Hence, the multiplier method to be adopted by the
learned trial judge needs to be revised. In the said circumstances, she seeks
for the enhancement of the amount.
11.The learned counsel for the insurance company, on instructions
and also upon the record submitted that the manner of the accident as
spoken by the witnesses itself showed that the deceased did not maintain the
proper distance and hence he sought for the confirmation of the 50-50% in
the negligence aspect, even though no evidence is adduced on the side of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the insurance company. Without any evidence on the side of the deceased,
ie.other aspects like income tax, etc., the learned trial judge has considered
themonthly income as Rs.15,000/- in accordance with the law.Hence, he
seeks for the dismissal of the appeal, even on the quantum also.
12.For the injured case concerned, the learned trial judge has
correctly fixed the awarded amount. Regarding the 9% disability, the trial
Judge has granted Rs.45,000/- rupees by calculating the Rs.5,000/- rupees
per percentage as per the division bench order of this court in 2013 (2)
TNMAC 583. Hence, the learned trial judge has correctly fixed the awarded
amount for the injured case also. In the said circumstances, he seeks for
dismissal.
13. This Court perused the records and considered the rival
submissions made on either side and also precedents relied upon by the
appellant's counsel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14.The following points arise for consideration of this appeal:
14.1.Whether the finding of the tribunal in 50% of the contributory
neglignece upon the deceased is in accordance with law?
14.2.Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation?
15.Discussion on negligence
The deceased drove his two-wheeler, bearing registration No.TN-01-
P-8449. The driver of the auto was driving his vehicle in front of the
deceased's two wheeler. The said auto driver suddenly applied the brake.
The specific evidence of the injured claimant, PW1, is that the deceased
drove his vehicle, two wheeler only with the speed of 20 to 30 km. Hence,
due to the sudden application of the brake by the auto driver, the accident
happened. According to the topography of the Madurai
GoripalayamKalpalam Road, the accident took place opposite to the
Meenakshi College. The road was one-way single road and the auto driver
suddenly stopped the vehicle. In the said circumstances, the rider of the
two-wheeler, namely deceased, while driving his vehicle slowly with 20-30
kms speed wearing helmet hit the auto. Due to the sudden impact, he fell
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
down and the helmet was also broken and he sustained injuries. The said
manner of the accident and the said evidence of PW1 was corroborated by
the independent evidence of PW2. PW1 and PW2 was subjected to the
incisive cross examination relating to the negligence aspect. But, no fruitful
answer was elicited by the insurance company. The auto driver was not
examined and the owner also did not come to the witness box. However the
insurance company disputed the manner of the accident.
15.1.In the said circumstances, without any contra-evidence, on the
side of the insurance company, fixing the negligence of 50% upon the
insurance company, in spite of the registration of the case against the auto
driver and final report filed against the auto driver, the learned counsel for
the Appellant rightly relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2022-1 TNMAC 152 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as follows:
10. The primary grievance of the appellants
are two-fold namely, (i) that the finding of
contributory negligence is wholly arbitrary and
unjustified; and (ii) that both the Tribunal and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
High Court failed to take care of the future
prospects, in the light of the law laid down
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi1.
11. The first grievance of the appellants
about the finding of contributory negligence is
liable to be sustained for three reasons namely,
(i) that even according to the
Tribunal and the High Court, the spot
where the lorry was parked, as
indicated in Exhibits P-1 to P-6 (FIR,
complaint, spot magazar etc.) and
Exhibit P-22 (spot sketch), was not a
parking place;
(ii) that according to the High
court, the driver of the lorry ought to
have parked the vehicle on the left side
of the road by giving proper
indication/signal, but it was not done;
and
(iii) that as per the finding of the
High court, the accident occurred at
about 4.30 A.M. when the lighting
should have been poor.
12. The view expressed by the High Court to
effect that if the driver of the car had been vigilant
and driving the vehicle carefully following the
traffic rules, the accident would not have happened,
is presumptuous and not based on any evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
There was nothing on record to indicate that the
driver of the car was not driving at moderate speed
nor that he did not follow traffic rules. On the
contrary, the High Court holds that if the lorry had
not been parked on the highway, the accident
would not have happened even if the car was driven
at a high speed.
13. Therefore, the entire reasoning of the
High Court on Issue No. 1 is riddled with inherent
contradictions. To establish contributory
negligence, some act or omission, which materially
contributed to the accident or the damage, should
be attributed to the person against whom it is
alleged. In Pramodkumar Rasikbhai
Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak2 this Court
quoted a decision of the High Court of Australia
in Astley v. Austrust Ltd.3, to hold that “…where,
by his negligence, one party places another in a
situation of danger, which compels that other to act
quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not
amount to contributory negligence, if that other
acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is
shown not to have been the best way out of the
difficulty”. In fact, the statement of law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Swadling v. Cooper4, that “…the mere failure to
avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary
precaution, does not in itself constitute
negligence…”, was also quoted with approval by
this Court. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse
the finding of the Tribunal and the High Court on
the question of contributory negligence.
15.2.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that in order to arrive at
the contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially
contributed to the accident should be attributed to the deceased. In this case,
no such thing happened. Admittedly, the auto driver stopped the vehicle in
the middle of the road, without any signal. According to the evidence of
P.W.1, the deceased drove his vehicle with the speed of 20 to 30 kms. In
spite of that, the sudden brake applied by the auto driver caused the
accident. The said evidence also corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2.
There is no contra evidence on the side of the insurance company. Further,
there is no circumstances either available on record or evidence of the
witnesses to presume auto driver was put in danger situation, which had
been impelled him to apply sudden break. In addition to that, there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
explanation on the side of the auto driver to show and prove that due to the
unavoidable circumstnaces, the auto was stopped in the middle road.
Therefore, in the peculiar circumstance of the case, as obsreved by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgement in para 13 is applicable to
this case. Hence, in this case, the failure to take exonerate precaution by the
deceased does not amount to negligence. Hence, fixing the contributory
negligence of 50% upon the deceased is against law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, this Court has set aside the negligence
aspect, finding of negligence, the 50% negligence against the deceased
without any contra evidence to overcome the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2
and the final report filed against the auto driver, the finding of the learned
Tribunal Judge is perverse, and hence, it is liable to be set aside and this
Court fixed the entire negligence upon the auto driver.
16.Discussion on quantum in C.M.A.(MD).No.555 of 2023:
As far as the quantum is concerned, the deceased was a practicing
advocate in Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Number of documents
are produced to show that he was continuously practicing in the Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Bench. More particularly, Ex.P27 was filed. Ex.P27, was filed to prove that
he was practicing an all fields including criminal and civil and writs,
including the tax matters and service matters, and also has filed second
appeals. Hence it is a proven fact that he was continuously practicing before
the court. Further, the respondent's father also adduced the evidence. The,
experience certificate was produced from his Senior Advocate. The
document, Ex.P-23 was marked. The senior counsel of the respondent
published a book under the caption of landmark judgments on matrimonial
matters containing the Supreme Court and the High Court's judgments on
marriage, divorce, etc. In the said book, the deceased contributed
substantially and the same was endorsed by the author, namely the senior of
the deceased in such a way, invented Kamala. I am also thankful for
assistance of my brothers and Mr.K.Jakob.
17.In the said circumstances, from the above, it is clear that the
deceased was practicing in the legal profession. In these circumstances, this
Court fixes the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/-.
(i)Taking consideration of the age, 31 years, As per the 2017(2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TNMAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi], 40%
future prospect is to be taken. 40% of future prospect calculated as Rs.
40,000 X 40/100= Rs.16,000/- and hence, his total monthly income comes
around Rs.56,000/-.
As per the case reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC) (Smt. Sarla
Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation and another) the
proper multiplier is 14 and taken into consideration of the four claimants,
the deduction was taken as ¼. Hence, the loss of income is calculated as
follows:
Rs.56,000 X ¾ X 12 X 16.
80,64,000/-
17.1.Further, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,96,261/-
as general damages under the conventional following heads:
Loss of spouse consortium =Rs.40,000/-
Loss of Parental consortium = Rs.40,000/-
Loss of filial consortium = Rs.80,000/-
Feneral Expenses = Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Estate =Rs.15,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Transport Expenses =Rs.5,000/-
Medical Expenses =Rs.1,261/-
------------------
Total =Rs.82,60,261/-
------------------
18. Conclusion
In the light of the above said discussion, the claimants would be
entitled to receive the following amounts as compensation under the various
heads enumerated hereunder:
S.No. Under the head a) Calculation b) Amount in
Rupees
1 Monthly income Rs.40,000/- X 40/100 = 56,000/-
(monthly income + 16,000/
future prospects
10%)
2. Annual Loss of Rs.56,000 X 12 = 6,72,000/-
Income 6,72,000/-
3 Deduction of 1/4 for Rs.6,72,000/4 = 1,68,000/-
his personal Rs.1,68,000/-
expenses
4 Total Loss of Rs.5,04,000 X 16 80,64,000/-
Income after =Rs.80,64,000/-
applying the
multiplier “16”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 Amount in
Compensation
Rupees
a) Loss of Income 80,64,000/-
b)Loss of spouse consortium 40,000/-
c) Loss of Parental consortium 40,000/-
d)Loss of filial consortium 80,000/-
e)Feneral Expenses 15,000/-
Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Transport Expenses 5,000/-
Medical Expenses 1,261/-
Total 82,60,261/-
Unfortunately, in this case, the parents of the deceased, namely, the
third and the fourth respondents herein disputed the marriage between the
the first appellant herein and their deceased son. The oral evidence and the
documents adduced by the first appellant clearly revealed that the marriage
between the first appellant and the deceased on 22.11.2013. Out of their
marriage, the second appellant was born on 30.05.2014. But, the respondent
Nos.3 and 4 disputed the same for some other purpose. From the pleadings
and the evidence, the deceased and the first appellant loved each other from
their college days and had love marriage in the presence of the bar members
and also the deceased's uncle, namely, the brother of the third respondent.
Therefore, this Court declines to accept the plea of the parents that the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant has not married the deceased. The third and fourth respondents
claimed that the deceased borrowed huge amount from him for purchasing
car and there was some dispute relating to the same. They neither made any
payment towards the medical expenditure nor the school fees of the child.
The first appellant alone filed this appeal, challenging the finding of the
tribunal on the negligence aspect and also to enhance the award amount.
The apportionment of the compensation is to be made not as per personal
law, but, as per the loss of dependency. Having regard to the mandate of
provision of Section 168 of the MV Act, coupled with the settled legal
position, it is held that the compensation awarded by a Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, after determination of just and fair compensation, has to
apportion the payment of compensation amongst the claimants, as
considered to be appropriate to the Tribunal in view of the loss of
dependency to the Claimant, disregarding the inheritance as per personal
law of the claimants. In normal course, as against the mother of the
deceased, who would have been in an advanced age, the wife of the
deceased being of young age, could have been granted a lion's share in the
compensation. The wife of the deceased has to go a long way. She has to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
take care of the child. From the strained relationship between the parents of
the deceased and the first appellant, now, the first appellant with accident
injuries is in a position to maintain herself and the minor child. Apart from
that, the first appellant is aged about 27 years and the child was 3 years on
the date of the accident. The first appellant has to provide good education to
her child. Therefore, the interest of justice requires more amount to be
apportioned to the wife of the deceased. considering the overall
circumstances, this Court inclines to give 60% of the compensation amount
to the wife of the deceased and 20% of the compensation to the minor child
and 10% each to the mother and father of the deceased respectively.
19. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.
(MD).No.555 of 2023 is partly allowed in the following terms:
(i)the judgment and award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1535 of 2018, by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, dated
08.11.2022 is hereby set aside.
(ii)the second respondent is liable to pay 70% of the total
compensation determained in this C.M.A.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iii)the claimants are entitled to the apportion the amount in the
following ration:
Rank Amount in Rs.
First appellant 49,56,157/-
Second appellant 16,52,052/-
Third respondent 8,26,026/-
Fourth respondent 8,26,026/-
20. The second respondent/insurance company is hereby directed to
deposit the entire amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs after
deducting the amount already deposited, within a period of 6 weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this award. On such deposit being made, the
first appellant, third and the fourth respondents are hereby permitted to
withdraw their respective share. The share of the minor child/second
appellant's share is directed to be deposited in the interest bearing account
till she attains majority and the first appellant is permitted to withdraw the
accrued interest once in every six months. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21.Discussion on quantum in C.M.A.(MD).No.474 of 2023:-
So far as the compensation relating to the civil miscellaneous appeal
in C.M.A.(MD).No.474 of 2023 is concerned, Priya is a practicing advocate.
She had love marriage with deceased. She is also having separate legal
practicing experience. Even in Ex.P-16, Ex.P-23, his senior Jacob was
thanking his contribution for releasing the book. In the said circumstances,
granted the compensation of Rs.2,26,034/-. The permanent disability,
Rs.45,000 was awarded and for the pain and suffering, Rs.25,000 alone
awarded. The same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- for the reason that she has
sustained injury all over the body. For the future medical expenditure
Rs.5,000/- is only given. As per the evidence of the claimant/ Priya, she is
taking treatment till now. Therefore, this Court feels that for the future
medical expenditure the amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and the
attendant charges is granted only Rs.5,000/-. The, learned trial judge has
failed to consider that both had love marriage and the child could not be
taken care of property,due to the injuries. She has sustained injuries all over
the body and also lost her husband.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.In the said circumstances, the awarded attendant charge of
Rs.5,000 is not correct and the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Due to the
accident, she is unable to do her practice continuously. After the accident,
even though disability is 9%, she is unable to continue her active practice as
done before the accident. Hence, this Court has adopted the multiplier
method to fix the loss of income by calculating 9%. She also has the
practicing experience in the legal field and hence monthly income is fixed
as Rs.10,000/-. She is 30 years old and 17 multiplier applied and calculated
the earning capacity and loss of income as Rs.10,000/-X12X9/100X17=Rs.
1,83,600/-.
23. Conclusion
In the light of the above said discussion, the claimant would be
entitled to receive the following amounts as compensation under the various
heads enumerated hereunder:
S. Under the head Awarded by Awarded by Award
No. the Tribunal this Court confirmed or
enhanced or
granted
1. For Permanent Rs.45,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Enhanced
Disability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. For Pain and Rs,25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Enhanced
sufferings
3. For Medical Rs.1,32,034/- Rs.1,32,034/- Confirmed
Expenses
4. For Future Rs.5,000/- Rs.50,000/- Enhanced
Medical
Expenses
5. For Rich and Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- Confirmed
Nutrious Food
6. For Attender Rs.5,000/- Rs.25,000/- Enhanced
Charges
7. For Transport Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- Confirmed
Expenses
8. For loss of Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Confirmed
Expectation
9. For loss of - Rs.1,83,600/- Awarded
earning capacity
10. For loss of - Rs.10,800/- Awarded
income
Total Rs.2,26,034/- Rs.6,15,434/- Enhanced
24.In the said circumstances, C.M.A(MD).No.474 of 2023, also
allowed in part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
from Rs.2,26,034/- to Rs.6,15,434/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.
The second respondent/insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
entire amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs after deducting
the amount already deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the
appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of
the Tribunal. No costs.
[V.B.S.J] [K.K.R.K.J.]
28.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sbn
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Special District Court to deal with the Motor Accidents Cases,
Madurai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
