Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1171 (MAD)

M. Malliga v. M. Pandian

2015-02-27

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
Judgment 1. This appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. 2. Heard both sides. 3. In an unfortunate accident, one F.V.J. Richard who was working as an Officer in Canara Bank, Main Branch, Thanjavur, died on 01.11.1999, near the Medical College Road, Thanjavur. The deceased was riding a two-wheeler at the time of accident. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No. TDZ 2620 dashed against him and in the result of the accident, he died. At the time of accident, the deceased was 43 years. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry and the second respondent is the insurer of the lorry. The claimants are the wife and daughter of the deceased. 4. The third respondent is his second wife and the fourth respondent is the minor child born through the third respondent. 5. The claimants filed MCOP No.2486 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / I Additional District Court, Madurai, claiming a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- as compensation. At the time of accident, the deceased was getting a sum of Rs.13,933/- as his monthly salary and the same is not in dispute, since the same is supported by the Salary Certificate. 6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for Rs.20,61,768/- under the following heads:- HEADS AMOUNT (Rs.) Loss of income 20,28,768/- Loss of consortium 15,000/- Transport charges 2,000/- Funeral expenses 5,000/- Loss of love and affection 11,000/- Total 20,61,768/- 7. However, the Tribunal restricted the award amount to Rs.17,00,000/- since the prayer of the claimants was only Rs.17,00,000/-. Though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for Rs.20,61,768/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.17,00,000/-. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants / claimants has submitted that though the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-, since the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for Rs.20,61,768/-, the Tribunal was not correct in restricting the amount to Rs.17,00,000/-. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants / claimants has submitted that the amount awarded towards loss of consortium by the Tribunal is very meagre. It is also submitted that the first claimant-wife lost her husband in her young age and the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection to the minor children is also very meagre. Hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation by Rs.4,00,000/-. 9. It is also submitted that the first claimant-wife lost her husband in her young age and the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection to the minor children is also very meagre. Hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation by Rs.4,00,000/-. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal would not be faulted with for awarding Rs.17,00,000/- since the claimants themselves have restricted their claim to that amount. But as far as the amount arrived at by the Tribunal at Rs.20,61,768/- is concerned, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no serious objection. 10. Even according to the claimants, a slight enhancement under the heads “loss of consortium” and “loss of love and affection” is enough to enhance the total compensation by Rs.4,00,000/-. 11. Under these circumstances, when the Tribunal itself came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for Rs.20,61,768/- and also taking into account of the fact that the amounts awarded towards loss of love and affection and consortium are meagre, I am inclined to enhance the compensation amount, by fixing the compensation payable at Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Only). The enhanced amount carries interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition. The enhanced amount will also be apportioned in the same proportion as determined by the Tribunal. 12. The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation including the enhanced amount, along with interest, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the first appellant is permitted to withdraw her entire share along with proportionate interest. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the rest of the amount in a Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks. The second appellant is a minor aged 13 years at the time of filing the claim petition in the year 1999 and now, he would have become major. Hence, he is also permitted to withdraw his share with proportionate interest by making necessary application before the Tribunal, declaring him as major. The share of the fourth respondent-minor shall be kept in the Bank Deposit till she attains majority. Hence, he is also permitted to withdraw his share with proportionate interest by making necessary application before the Tribunal, declaring him as major. The share of the fourth respondent-minor shall be kept in the Bank Deposit till she attains majority. The interest accrued in respect of the share of the fourth respondent-minor, shall be withdrawn by her mother and natural guardian/third respondent, once in three months directly from the bank, which shall be used for the benefit and welfare of the fourth respondent. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.