Madras High Court
Muniyammal vs Mani on 5 February, 2025
CMA No.3521 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 05.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA No.3521 of 2021
1. Muniyammal
2. Senthilmurugan
3. Alamelu
4. Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Mani
2. The Divisional Manager,
The National Insurance Company Limited,
Vellore. . ... Respondents
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated
21.12.2019 and made in MACT OP No.1295/2017 on the file of the
Special Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tiruvannamalai.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Lavanya
For Respondents : Mr. P.Sankaranarayanan for R2
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.3521 of 2021
ORDER
The appellants are the claimants in MACTOP No.1295 of 2017
on the file of the Special Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai.
2. It is not in dispute that the husband of the first appellant and
the father of the appellants 2 to 4 died in a road accident on
28.07.2017. No arguments have been advanced by the counsel for
either side on negligence as well as liability aspect and the appeal has
been filed only on the question of quantum.
3. According to the appellants/ claimants, the deceased was aged
about 60 years (as mentioned in the claim petition) and he was engaged
in agricultural and milk vending business. In the claim petition, the
claimants claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards income of the
deceased. However, the Tribunal fixed income of the deceased at
Rs.6,500/- per month and together with conventional heads, awarded a
total sum of Rs.4,39,500/- as compensation. Not satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellants/claimants have come before this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that having
regard to the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 2017, the
amount of Rs.6,500/- fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the
deceased is on very much lower side. He further submitted that the
Tribunal should have fixed atleast a sum of Rs.15,000/- as notional
income. He also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any
amount under the head ' love and affection ' to the three children of the
deceased.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent/ insurance
company would submit that the deceased was aged about 65 years and
absolutely there is no evidence available on record to show that he was
actively involved in any business or agricultural work. Therefore, the
Tribunal was justified in fixing notional income at Rs.6,500/-.
6. It is not in dispute that the age of the deceased was mentioned
as 65 years in the post mortem report. Hence, the Tribunal was
justified in fixing 65 years as age of the deceased, in the absence of any
other positive evidence. Though the son of the deceased was examined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as PW2, he has not produced any document to show that the deceased
was actively involved in any business or agricultural activities. Having
regard to the age of the victim, this court feels that it would be
appropriate to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-
per month. Thus, by adopting proper multiplier '7' and after deducting
1/3 towards personal expenses, loss of dependency is calculated at
Rs.6,72,000/-
12,000 x 12 x 7 = Rs.10,08,000
Less: 1/3 towards personal expenses = Rs. 3,36,000
-----------------
Rs. 6,72,000
----------------
The Tribunal, though awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards Loss
of estate and Funeral expenses, has not awarded any amount towards
' 'loss of consortium ' to the wife/first claimant and 'love and affection'
to the children/claimants 2 to 4. Therefore, this court feels that it
would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the first
claimant and claimants 2 to 4 towards 'consortium' and 'love affection'
respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Accordingly, the revised compensation awarded by this Court
under various heads are as follows.
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed
Tribunal this Court or enhanced
(Rs) (Rs) or granted
1. Loss of dependency 4,09,500 6,72,000 enhanced
2. Loss of estate 15,000 15,000 confirmed
3. Funeral expenses 15,000 15,000 confirmed
4. Loss of consortium to - 40,000 granted
first claimant- wife
5. Loss of love and - 1,20,000 granted
affection to 3 children
each Rs.40,000
6. Total 4,39,500 8,62,000 enhanced by
4,22,500
8. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal at Rs.4,39,500/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.8,62,000/-
together with interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period,
if any) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellants
are entitled to get equal share in the compensation amount now
determined by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation
amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs,
less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit,
the appellants/claimants shall be permitted to withdraw the
compensation amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if
any, already withdrawn, by making formal application before the
Tribunal. No costs.
05.02.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
mst
To
1. The Special Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Divisional Manager,
The National Insurance Company Limited,
Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
mst
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
