Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Muthu Irulan on 5 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.439 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 05.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.439 of 2014
and M.P(MD)No.4 of 2014
The Divisional Manager,
The National Insurance Company Limited,
706, Thenkasi Road,
Rajapalayam ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Muthu Irulan
2.Karupayee
3.Mariammal
4.Shanthi
5.Mallika ...Respondent 1 to 5/Petitioners 1 to 5
6.Rajendran ...6th Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated
01.02.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.26 of 2012 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Virudhunagar.
For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1 to R5 : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram
R6 : Exparte
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD)No.439 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants 1 to 5 filed a claim petition
stating that while the deceased was working as a Cleaner in a Tractor,
which was parked on the left side of the road, a lorry insured with the
appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
Tractor from behind, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal
injuries.
3. The 6th respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant filed a counter denying the averments made in the
claim petition and stated that in any case, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is excessive.
5. The claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.11. The appellant neither examined witnesses nor marked
documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the
negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle and awarded a sum of
Rs.6,57,000/- as total compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award
of the Tribunal is challenged only on the ground that excessive
compensation was awarded to the respondents 1 to 5/claimants; and that
they are not challenging the finding on negligence.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that
though P.W.1, the mother of the deceased stated that the deceased was
earning Rs.150/- per day, the notional income of Rs.6000/- was fixed by
the Tribunal, which is excessive and prayed for reduction.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants per
contra submitted that even assuming that the income was fixed at
Rs.4500/- per month and and if 40% is added for future prospects, the
monthly income of the deceased would have to be at Rs.6300/-, but the
Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.6000/- only without adding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
40% for future prospects; that the Tribunal awarded a very meagre
amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection'; that
over all, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable, and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions
made on either side and carefully perused the materials available on
record.
11. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
12. On a perusal of the grounds of appeal, this Court finds that the
appellant had stated that the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier
'13' by considering the age of the mother of the deceased instead of the
multiplier '17'. The claim petition was filed in the year 2013 and law
thereafter has been crystallised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
that the multiplier has to be fixed on the basis of the age of the deceased.
Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly adopted the multiplier '17'
considering the age of the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. So far as the fixation of monthly income at Rs.6000/- by the
Tribunal is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
claimants that even if the evidence of P.W.1 is accepted to the effect that
the deceased was earning Rs.4500/- per month and 40% was added for
future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would have to be at
Rs.6300/- and the Tribunal, without adding 40% for future prospects, has
taken the monthly income only at Rs.6000/- and therefore, it cannot be
said that excessive compensation was awarded.
14. Over all, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants have also not challenged
the finding on the quantum of compensation. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal does not call for interference, and hence, the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
15. It is submitted by the learned counsel on either side that the
appellant has deposited the entire compensation amount as per the order
of this Court dated 22.04.2014. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants are
permitted to withdraw the compensation amount, less the amount already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
withdrawn by them, by filing a suitable application as per the
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal.
16. In fine, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District Court), Virudhunagar.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
05.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
