Madras High Court
R.Selvi vs C.Muthuraman on 24 January, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
CMA.No.121 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CMA.No.121 of 2025
1. R.Selvi
2. R.Inbha ...Appellants
Vs.
1. C.Muthuraman
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Motor Third Party Claims Office – HUB,
No.115, Prakasam Salai, Broadway,
Chennai – 600 108. ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as against the judgment and decree dated
27.11.2023 made in MCOP.No.3532 of 2021 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellants : M/s.P.T.Saleem Fathima
for M/s.M.S.Elangovan Law Associates
For Respondents : Mr.J.Chandran, for R2
: Notice dispensed with, for R1
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.121 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2023 made in
MCOP.No.3532 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the claimants have
come up with this appeal.
2. Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the 2nd
respondent. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on
either side, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission
stage itself.
3. Since the 1st respondent remained exparte before the trial court,
notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.
4. It is the case of the claimants that, on 23.02.2021 at about 18.00
hours, when the deceased Ravichandran was travelling as a pillion rider
in the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-48-AZ-7891 in Trichy-Madurai
National Highway from Viralimalai Cutt Road from east to west, at that
time, a car bearing Regn.No.TN-55-Y-8060, owned by the 1st respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
insured with the 2nd respondent driven by its driver came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the above said motorcycle, due to
which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same.
Thereby, the appellants, who are the dependents of the deceased
Ravichandran filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.3532 of 2021 claiming
a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants
examined two witnesses viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits P.1 to
P.10 and on the side of respondents, one witness viz., R.W.1 was
examined and exhibits R.1 to R.3 were marked. After trial, the Tribunal,
on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, though came to a
conclusion that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle,
however, awarded a meagre amount of Rs.10,76,900/- towards
compensation for the death of the deceased Ravichandran. Being not
satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellants/claimants have come up with this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the above said
accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
part of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle and the accident is of the
year 2021 and at the time of accident, the deceased was only aged about
55 years and was working as a Astrologer and was earning a sum of
Rs.30,000/- per month, however, the tribunal had taken the notional
income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/-, which is very meagre and the
same is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in
catena of decisions and thereby, the same has to be increased to
Rs.20,000/- and the compensation awarded under other heads are also on
the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, he
prayed for appropriate orders.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company contended that, by considering all the
relevant documents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation,
which does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the
parties and the parties have not raised any issue on the aspect of
negligence and therefore, this Court is not venturing into the same.
9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is
concerned, the accident is of the year 2021 and at the time of accident,
the deceased was aged about 57 years and he was an Astrologer by
profession and the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income at
Rs.12,000/-, which is on the lower side. Applying the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India
Insurance Company reported in 2014 (1) TANMAC 459, and also
considering the age of the deceased as also the claimants, fixing a
notional income of Rs.18,000/- and adding future prospects at 10%, as
has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in
2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680, the income per month is quantified
at Rs.19,800/-. Deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the
deceased, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.13,200/- per
month and the deceased being aged about 57 years, as evidenced from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the records, adopting the multiplier of 9 as fixed by the Apex Court in the
case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.13,200/- * 12 * 9 =
Rs.14,25,600/-.
10. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are
concerned, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under
other heads are just and reasonable and the same does not requires
interference of this Court.
11. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified as under :-
Amount awarded by the Modified Award
Heads Tribunal Amount
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 9,50,400/- 14,25,600/-
Loss of consortium 88,000/- 88,000/-
Funeral Expenses 16,500/- 16,500/-
Loss of estate 16,500/- 16,500/-
Transportation 5,500/- 5,500/-
expenses
Total 10,76,900/- 15,52,100/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed in
part and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.3532
of 2021 is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from
Rs.10,76,900/- to Rs.15,52,100/-. The 2nd respondent Insurance is
directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of MCOP.No.3532 of
2021 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the
Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of
four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
appellants are entitled to get the award amount of Rs.7,76,050/- each
with proportionate interest and costs. On such deposit being made, the
Tribunal is directed to transfer the compensation amount directly to the
bank accounts of the appellants through RTGS within a period of two (2)
weeks thereafter, upon production of proof with regard to payment of
Court fee on the enhanced compensation. Further, as ordered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
tribunal, liberty is granted to the 2nd respondent to recover the said
amount from the 1st respondent in the manner known to law. It is
underscored that the appellants are not entitled to any interest for the
default period, if any. No costs.
24.01.2025
skt
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
To:
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt
24.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
