Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1606 (MAD)

Tamilselvi v. R. Kesava Kumar

2020-09-22

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgment order dated 08.07.2015 in M.C.O.P.No.428 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Small Causes Court, at Chennai.) 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.428 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The claimants are the appellants, seeking enhancement of compensation mainly on th ground that the Tribunal has not granted just compensation and the compensation granted is not in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants mainly contended that the Tribunal, while rightly fixing the negligence on the rider of the motor cycle failed to commute the award as per the guidelines available. The deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and was working as a Painter. The accident occurred on 10.03.2011 and these aspects were not considered, while fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased person. The learned counsel for the appellants is of an opinion that the monthly income of Rs.6,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is improper and therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced. The Tribunal failed to award Future Prospects and for Love and Affection also, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is to be granted. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent / Insurance company objected the contentions by stating that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased person. The claimants have not produced any proof for income and in the absence of any such proof, the Tribunal cannot fix based on any presumptions or assumptions. Thus, a sum of Rs.6,000/- fixed, considering the minimum wages is to be taken for the purpose of quantifying the compensation. This apart, the compensation granted under the head of Love and Affection is also not contemplated by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609(SC). Thus, the grounds raised in the present appeal is unsustainable and the award passed by the Tribunal is to be confirmed. 5. This apart, the compensation granted under the head of Love and Affection is also not contemplated by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609(SC). Thus, the grounds raised in the present appeal is unsustainable and the award passed by the Tribunal is to be confirmed. 5. The accident occurred on 10.03.2011 at about 21.30 Hrs at Velacherry Main Road, Ayswariya Store, Medavakkam, Chennai. Mount Traffic Investigation, Pallavaram, registered a case in Crime No.461/2011. The deceased Mr.Karthick was a Pillion rider of Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-07-BJ-4064. The death occurred due to the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased. The Claim Petition was filed by the parents of the deceased person. The deceased, at the time of accident, was aged about 24 years and was working as a Painter. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues and arrived a conclusion that based on the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P1/FIR, the 1st respondent's Motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-07-BJ-4064 was responsible for the accident and accordingly, fixed the liability on the 2nd respondent/Insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants. No contra evidence was produced by the Insurance company to rebut the contentions in the FIR. Thus, the Tribunal fixed the negligence on the 1st respondent's Motor Cycle. 6. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. This Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased was working as a Painter. The job of Painter is a skilled job. He was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. Thus, he was actively performing his job as a Painter. The accident occurred in the year 2011. Thus, fixing a sum of Rs.6,000/- as a salary for the month is undoubtedly inadequate and not in commensuration with the cost intense of the particular year. The factum regarding the occupation of the deceased was not disputed by the Insurance company. 7. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have fixed atleast a sum of Rs.7,500/- as monthly income, which would be proper and reasonable. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to enhance the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal from a sum of Rs.6,000/- to a sum of Rs.7,500/-. 7. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have fixed atleast a sum of Rs.7,500/- as monthly income, which would be proper and reasonable. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to enhance the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal from a sum of Rs.6,000/- to a sum of Rs.7,500/-. In view of the fact that the deceased was a Bachelor, 50% of the income is to be deducted and Multiplier-18 is applicable in the present case. This apart, 40% future prospects is to be added. Accordingly, the Loss of Dependency would be Rs.5,250x12x18=Rs.11,34,000/-. This apart, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Estate. Thus, the appellant/claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.11,64,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakh and Sixty Four Thousand only) along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 8. It is made clear that there was a delay in filing the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Thus, the appellants/claimants are not entitled for any interest for the delay period and the delay is to be calculated by the Tribunal and the said interest amount for the delay period is to be deducted. 9. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the modified award amount along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, deducting the interest for the delay period and deducting the amount already deposited, within a period of twelve(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. 10. The Pay and Recovery ordered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in its award stands confirmed. 11. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the additional Court fee, if any, with reference to the enhanced compensation within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the payments are to be made through RTGS. 12. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.428 of 2013 stands modified and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.270 of 2019 is allowed in part. No costs.