Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4054 (MAD)

G. Manimegalai v. R. Kannan

2010-09-07

K.MOHAN RAM

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Claimants in M.C.O.P. No.4639 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai are the Appellants in the above Appeal. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the Claimants are before this Court. 2. The only point that has been raised in the above Appeal is as to whether the Tribunal is right in deducting 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his Personal Expenses and fixing the contribution to the family at 1/3rd of his earnings. 3. Heard both. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Tribunal, on the basis of the decision in the case of Donat Lous Machado & others v. L. Ravindra and others, 1999 ACJ 1400, has held that the deceased, a bachelor, would have spent 2/3rd of his income for his own family in future and would be contributing 1/3rd of his income to his parents and on that basis, has deducted 2/3rd of the income and passed the various subsequent decision, the Apex Court has invariably held that 1/3rd of the Income of the bachelor alone should be deducted. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Deo Patodi & others, 2009 (1) TN MAC 629 (SC). In this decision, it has been held that indisputably, the deduction of 1/3rd towards Personal Expenses is the ordinary rule in India. In this Decision, in paragraph 13, the decision, Donat Lous Machado & others v. L. Ravindra and others, 1999 ACJ 1400: 1998 (8) SCC 633 , has also been considered and only thereafter considering the said decision and several other decisions, the Apex Court has held as above. Therefore, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the award of the Tribunal as far as the deduction so made has to be set aside and the compensation has to be enhanced. 6. Countering the above submissions learned Counsel for the Second Respondent fairly submissions, that in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Deo Patodi & others, 2009 (1) TN MAC 629 (SC) he cannot the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. I have considered the said submissions and peruced the materials available on record and also the aforesaid decisions. 8. Ltd. V. Deo Patodi & others, 2009 (1) TN MAC 629 (SC) he cannot the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. I have considered the said submissions and peruced the materials available on record and also the aforesaid decisions. 8. It is no doubt true that in the decision in Donat Lous Machado & others v. L. Ravindra and others, 1999 ACJ 1400: 1998 (8) SCC 633 . It has been held as follows: “that a bachelor has to spend 2/3 of his income for his own family in future and he will be contributing 1/3rd of his income to the parents” But, the said decision and several other decisions on this point have been considered in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Deo Patodi & others, 2009 (1) TN MAC 629 (SC) and the Apex Court thereafter has held that the deduction of 1/3rd towards. Personal Expenses is the ordinary rule in India. 9. Therefore, in the light of decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Deo Patodi & others, 2009 (1) TN MAC 629 (SC), the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and therefore, the decision of the Tribunal deducting 2/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased towards his Personal Expenses and holding the contribution of 1/3rd of his income is set aside. Instead, it is held that the contribution to the dependants will be 2/3rd and only 1/3 of the income is to be deducted towards Personal Expenses of the deceased. If the above modification is made in the award passed by the Tribunal, the total compensation that is to be awarded will come to Rs.6,45,000/- 10. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and there shall be an award for a sum of Rs.6,45,000/- (Rupees six lakhs and forty five thousand only), which the Respondents 1 to 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Claimants. The Second Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the balance amount awarded now in this Appeal i.e. a sum Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs only) together with interest at 7.58 per annum before the Tribunal to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 4639 of 2000 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The CMA is party allowed. No costs. 11. The CMA is party allowed. No costs. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Third Appellant-third Claimant, who was unmarried at the time of presenting the Claim Petitioner is now married and therefore, she cannot be considered to be a dependent and therefore, further submitted that the enhanced amount should be directed to be paid in equal proportions to Appellants 1 and 2. 12. Accordingly the enhanced compensation amount together with interest directed to be deposited by the Second Respondent in this Appeal shall be permitted to be withdrawn by Appellants 1 and 2 in equal proportions.