Madras High Court
Senbaga Natchiyar vs Moorthy on 23 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.686 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD)No.686 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.12973 of 2024
1.Senbaga Natchiyar,
2.Minor.Livinstan,
3.Minor.Abinaya Shri,
4.Minor.Vijayadharshan.
Periyamuthu (died).
(Appellants 2 to 4/minors are represented by their mother and
natural guardian/1st appellant) ...
Appellants
vs
1.Moorthy,
2.The Zonal Manager,
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
555 and 556 capital towers, V Floor,
Anna salai, Thenampettai, Chennai Town,
Chennai Corporation.
3.Pappal. ...
Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 17.06.2022 in
M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Additional District Court, Paramakudi.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD) No.686 of 2024
For appellants : Mr.D.Senthil
For Respondents
for R1 : No appearance
for R2 : Mr.Shyllappa Kalyan
for R3 : died
*****
JUDGMENT
With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is taken up for final
disposal.
2. The instant appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
3. 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.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre inasmuch for an
accident that took place in the year 2013, a very low notional income at
Rs.7,000/- p.m. was fixed, though the claimants had established that the
deceased was working as a driver; and that the compensation under the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
other heads is meagre and hence, prayed for enhancement.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance
Company, per contra, submitted that the award of the Tribunal is just and
reasonable inasmuch as no deduction towards personal expenses was
made while computing the loss of income and therefore, the appeal has to
be dismissed.
6. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is 'whether
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable?'
7. P.W.1/the wife of the deceased had deposed that the deceased
was working as a driver. The driving licence of the deceased was marked
as Ex.P10, however, no documentary proof was produced either to prove
the exact employment or the salary earned by the deceased. However, the
notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- p.m. is meagre.
Hence, this Court is of the view that considering the age, avocation of the
deceased and the year of accident, the notional income can be fixed at Rs.
10,000/- p.m. Since at the time of filing of the claim petition, there were
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
six dependants, ¼ has to be deducted towards the personal expenses. The
multiplier applicable is '15' and 40% has to be added towards future
prospects. Hence, the loss of income has to be Rs.10,000/- + Rs.4,000/- x
12 x 15 x ¾ = Rs.18,90,000/-.
8. The claimants had been awarded the compensation of Rs.
1,40,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.40,000/-) towards the 'loss of consortium'.
However, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each. Hence, the
compensation under the head 'loss of consortium' has to be enhanced to
Rs.2,00,000/-. The award under the head 'funeral expenses' is confirmed.
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S.N Description Amount Amount Award
o awarded by the awarded by this confirmed,
Tribunal Court enhanced or
granted
1 Loss of Income Rs.12,60,000/- Rs.18,90,000/- Enhanced
2 Loss of consortium Rs. 1,40,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Enhanced
3 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed
Total Rs.14,15,000/- Rs.21,05,000/- Enhanced by
Rs.6,90,000/-
9. Although the Tribunal has held that the respondents 1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, considering the fact that
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the second respondent is the insurer of the first respondent, the second
respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Hence,
they are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of
Rs.21,05,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs and Five Thousand only)
along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till
the date of realisation (excluding the delay period of 299 days) and costs,
less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The claimants would be entitled to the compensation equally.
The first appellant and third respondent shall withdraw their share, less
the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing suitable application before
the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay the Court fee on the
enhanced amount. The share of the minor claimants/respondents 2 to 4
herein may be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank in an
interest-bearing Fixed Deposit, initially for a period of three years,
renewable thereafter, till the minors attain majority. The guardian of the
minors/the first respondent herein, who is their mother, is permitted to
withdraw interest from the said deposit, once in three months and utilise
the same for the welfare of the minor claimants/respondents 2 and 3
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
herein.
11. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.10.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
apd
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court,
Paramakudi.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN,J
apd
23.10.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
