Madras High Court

Meharunnisha vs T.Ramalingam on 10 September, 2024

Author: R.Hemalatha

Bench: R. Hemalatha

                                                                                    CMA.No.1305 of 2024


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 10.09.2024

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                                    C.M.A.No.1305 of 2024

                     Meharunnisha                                             ... Appellant
                                                             vs.
                     1. T.Ramalingam

                     2. The Manager,
                     United India Insurance Company Limited,
                     Silingi Building, 4th Floor,
                     No.134, Greams Road,
                     Chennai - 600 006.                                      ... Respondents


                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 28.08.2023 in
                     M.C.O.P. 191 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
                     II Small Causes Court, Chennai.

                                    For Appellant       : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
                                    For R2              : Mr.K.Swaminathan




                     1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      CMA.No.1305 of 2024


                                                    JUDGMENT

The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P. 191 of 2022 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court,

Chennai. She filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death

of her husband in a road accident that took place on 25.12.2021.

2. The brief case of the appellant / claimant is as follows :

On 25.12.2021, Syed Akthar Hussain (since deceased) was

riding his two wheeler bearing Registration Number TN-19-AB-5248 on

Chengalpattu - Kunnavakkam Road. When he was nearing Primary Health

Centre, Kunnavakkam, a speeding bus bearing Registration Number TN-

19-W-4455 hit the two wheeler driven by Syed Akthar Hussain

(deceased), as a result of which, he sustained injuries all over his body. He

was immediately rushed to the Government Medical College and Hospital,

Chengalpattu. However, he succumbed to injuries on 01.01.2022.

3. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the bus bearing Registration Number TN-19-W-4455 was the

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

cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the

second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the

owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation

to her.

4. In the Tribunal the owner of the bus remained absent and

was set ex parte. The second respondent resisted the claim petition on all

the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor

Vehicles Act.

5. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, fastened

negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and awarded compensation

of Rs.12,47,000/- to the appellant / claimant together with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation,

vide its orders dated 28.08.2023.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the appellant / claimant has filed the present appeal under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

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

7. Heard Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant and Mr.K.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the

second respondent.

8. Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant contended that the deceased was working in a provision store as

well as a load man earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the

Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased only as

Rs.12,000/-, which, according to him, is very meagre. He therefore,

prayed for enhancement of the notional income of the deceased.

9. Per contra Mr.K.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for

the second respondent contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal is

based on the well laid down principles of law which were in vogue at the

time of passing of the order and therefore, the same need not be disturbed

at this stage.

10. It is seen from the records that the deceased was aged 48

years and the accident took place in the year 2021. Though it is contended

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

by the claimant that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per

month and the same has not been substantiated by her by adducing

acceptable oral / documentary evidence. In the absence of income proof,

the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.12,000/-. Considering the age of the victim and the year of the

accident, this Court is of the opinion that fixing notional monthly income

of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- would meet the ends of justice. As per the

decision of the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. vs

Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601, 25% is added

towards future prospects of the deceased. Since there is only one

dependent, 1/3rd of the deceased's income should be deducted towards his

personal expenses. The deceased was aged 48 years on the date of

accident and the proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 13 as

per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Calculation

Notional Income = Rs.16,000/-

25% Future Prospects = Rs.20,000/-

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

After 1/3 deduction = Rs.13,333/-

Loss of dependency

= Rs.13,333/- x 12 x 13

= Rs.20,79,948/-

In addition to that the claimant is entitled to Rs.44,000/-, Rs.16,500/- and

Rs.16,500/- for 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'

respectively as per the decision in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay

sethi and others (cited supra). Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.21,56,948/- ( 20,79,948 + 44,000 + 16,500 + 16,500 =

21,56,948) as shown in the following tabular column.

                                       S.No.               Head            Amount granted
                                                                            by this court
                                  1.           Loss of dependency           Rs.20,79,948/-

                                  2.           Loss of consortium            Rs.44,000/-

                                  3.           Funeral expenses              Rs.16,500/-
                                  4.           Loss of Estate                Rs.16,500/-
                                  Total                                     Rs.21,56,948/-

11. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

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

from Rs.12,47,000/- to Rs.21,56,948/- which would carry interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum.

12. In the result,

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.12,47,000/- to Rs.21,56,948/-.

iii. The appellant / claimant is directed to pay court fee for the

enhanced compensation amount, if any, within a period of four

weeks from the date of this order and the Registry is directed to

draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.