Madras High Court
T.Joshiya vs S.Lakshmi on 10 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.995 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.995 of 2021
T.Joshiya,
2.Silverstar. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.S.Lakshmi,
2.The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
54-A, Mythili Nivas,
Palani Road, Dindigul – 624 001.
3.S.Ananth,
4.The Branch Manager,
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.82, Preetham Plaza, I Floor,
Chandrakandhi Nagar, Ponmeni,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated
27.07.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1379 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court. Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Maheswaran
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD) No.995 of 2021
For Respondents :
for R1 & R3 : No appearance
for R2 : Mr.J.S.Murali
for R4 : Mr.V.Sakthivel
*****
JUDGMENT
The claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. Since the finding on negligence is not under challenge, the facts
leading to the filing of the claim petition are unnecessary for the disposal
of the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that
though the claimants had not produced any documentary evidence to
prove the avocation, they had examined the wife of the deceased as P.W.1
to prove that the deceased was working as a Mason and was earning
approximately Rs.20,000/- p.m. and that the Tribunal had taken a very
meagre notional income of Rs.7,000/- p.m. and prayed for enhancement of
the compensation.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsels for respondents 2 and 4, who have both
been directed to pay the compensation at 50% each, per contra, submitted
that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable and prayed for
confirmation of the award.
5. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable?’
6. Though the claimants had stated that the deceased was working
as a Mason, no documentary evidence was produced to prove either the
avocation or income of the deceased. The deceased was aged 37 years at
the time of accident. P.W.1- the wife of the deceased had deposed that the
deceased was earning nearly Rs.20,000/- p.m, which is not supported by
any other evidence.
7. Considering the age of the deceased, year of the accident and the
avocation of the deceased, this Court is of the view that it would be just
and reasonable to fix the notional income of Rs.12,000/- p.m. The
deceased would be entitled to 40% towards future prospects. The
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
multiplier applicable is ‘15’. 1/3 has to be deducted towards personal
expenses as there are two dependents. Thus, the compensation under the
head ‘loss of dependency’ has to be Rs.12,000/- + Rs.4,800/- x 12 x 15 x
2/3 = Rs.20,16,000/-.
8. The claimants are also entitled to ‘loss of consortium’ at
Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- each. The
compensation under the heads ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ is
enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each. The compensation under the heads
‘Medical expenses’ and ‘Transportation charges’ is confirmed. Thus, the
compensation is modified as follows:
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed,
the Tribunal this Court enhanced or
granted
1 Loss of dependency Rs.11,75,940/- Rs.20,16,000/- Enhanced
2 Transportation charges Rs. 7,000/- Rs. 7,000/- Confirmed
3 Medical expenses Rs. 98,320/- Rs. 98,320/- Confirmed
4 Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Enhanced
5 Loss of consortium Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Enhanced
6 Filial Consortium Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Enhanced
7 Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Enhanced
Total Rs.13,71,260/- Rs.22,31,320/- Enhanced by
Rs.8,60,060/-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. However, the finding of the Tribunal as regards the pay and
recover is confirmed. The second respondent is at liberty to recover the
compensation in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka reported
in 2015 (1) SCC 550. Further, having held that the third respondent had a
valid insurance policy with the fourth respondent, the finding of the
Tribunal that both the respondents 3 and 4 are jointly and safely liable to
pay 50% of the compensation may not be appropriate. The fourth
respondent as the insurer of the third respondent is alone liable to pay the
compensation as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal.
10. The respondents 2 and 4 shall each deposit 50% of the enhanced
compensation (i.e) second respondent shall deposit Rs.11,15,660/- and
the fourth respondent shall deposit Rs.11,15,660/- with accrued interest at
7.5% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization
(excluding the period of dismissal for default if any) and costs, less the
amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
withdraw their award amount as per the apportionment fixed by the
Tribunal, together with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount
already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the
Tribunal. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the necessary
Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced amount.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs.
10.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No (2/2)
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge. Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
10.09.2024
(2/2)
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
