Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 777 (MAD)

N. Vanaja v. Purion Distilled Water Pvt. Ltd.

2021-03-05

R.SUBBIAH, SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J. Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.7100 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.04.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No. 7100 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The case in brief is as follows: On 28.03.2010 at about 7.15 pm, while the deceased was walking along Nellikuppam Road, From Guduvanchery towards Kayarambedu, at that time, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-19-S-3413 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and died. 3. Mr.M.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 57 years. As per the claim petition, the claimant is a widow and they do not have children. As per the claim petition, the deceased/ husband of the claimant was working as a Basic health Worker, Zone VI Corporation of Chennai. On the date of accident, he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, totally from his employment in the Corporation of Chennai and as Gurukkal in a temple. In the enquiry, no document was marked as proof of income. Therefore, the Tribunal had observed that both avocations, namely, health worker and Gurukkal in the temple, cannot co-exist as both would require going to the working place early in the morning. Therefore, rejecting the claim as regards the avocation of the deceased, the learned Judge had fixed a sum of Rs.9,000/- as notional income and had calculated the loss of income. Therefore, only a meagre amount was awarded. Aggrieved by the same, the sole claimant has preferred this appeal. 4. Mrs.R.Srividhya., learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/Respondent has submitted her arguments. As per her submissions, only claimant is the widow. In the absence of any proof of income, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is justified. Therefore, interference of this Court is not warranted. This appeal lacks merit and it has to be dismissed. 5. 4. Mrs.R.Srividhya., learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/Respondent has submitted her arguments. As per her submissions, only claimant is the widow. In the absence of any proof of income, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is justified. Therefore, interference of this Court is not warranted. This appeal lacks merit and it has to be dismissed. 5. Point for consideration Whether the claimant/appellant is entitled to enhancement of the award amount. 6. Perused the petition and counter in MCOP.No.7100 2016 and the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and the grounds of appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement. 7. It is found that in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- which is found to be meagre. Considering the present cost of living and the date of accident and following the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017 (1) TNMAC 598 (SC) (M.Shivakumar Vs. The Managing Director, BMTC) extracted hereunder, Fixation of- Personal Injury case- Injured/Claimant/Appellant aged 45 yrs., a Painter earning around Rs.15,000 to Rs.16,500 p.m., - Suffered 40% disability in accident that took place on 16.08.2013- Tribunal, in absence of any evidence on record, fixed Monthly Income at Rs.5,500/- p.m., considering nature of work as Painter- High Court in Appeal fixed Income at Rs.6,500 p.m., in any dispute with regard to age and avocation – If, proper-Claimant, a Casual Worker doing Painting work by going place to place, cannot be expected to produce evidence with regard to income- Claimant rightly made selfestimation at Rs.15000 to Rs.16500 p.m., - High Court, in absence of any serious dispute with regard to avocation and income, ought to have accepted evidence of Claimant – Apex Court taking Income at Rs.15,000 p.m., and deducting 1/3rd towards Personal Expenses fixed Monthly Income at Rs.10,000 p.m., as against Rs.6,500 p.m., - Respondent/Transport Corporation directed to workout Compensation accordingly and deposit Award amount with 9% p.a. Interest within 3 months' period – In case of failure, Claimant entitled to Interest at 18% p.a. This Court fixes the monthly income as Rs.15,000/-. 8. On the date of death, the deceased was aged 57 years. Therefore, towards future prospects only 10% of the income could be added as per the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. 8. On the date of death, the deceased was aged 57 years. Therefore, towards future prospects only 10% of the income could be added as per the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC). Future Prospects:: 15000 (Monthly income) x 10%(Future Prospects) = 1500 Future Prospects on addition of the income per month :: 15000+1500=16500 Annual Contribution :: 16500x12 = 1,98,000 Taking the multiplier as 9 for the age group 56 to 60 years Pecuniary Loss :: Rs.1,98,000 x9x1/2 Rs.8,91,000/- 9. No amount was awarded by the Tribunal under the head “Transportation”. Therefore, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards “Transportation”. 10. Since the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under all the other heads are just and fair, the same are hereby confirmed. The break-up details of the amounts awarded under various heads are as follows: Sl. No Head under which the compensation is awarded Amounts awarded by the Tribunal Amounts awarded by this Court 1 Pecuniary Loss 5,34,600 8,91,000 2 Loss of Consortium 40,000 40,000 3 Loss of Estate 15,000 15,000 4 For Funeral Expenses 15,000 15,000 5 For Transportation - 10,000 Total 6,04,600 Rounded off-6,05,000 9,71,000 11. The Point for consideration is answered in favour of the appellant/claimant and against the 2nd respondents/Insurance Company. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount, which we have determined in this appeal, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.7100 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit along with costs if any as awarded by the Tribunal, through RTGS or NEFT method as held by this Court in (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kannur Vs. Rajesh and two others) 2016 (1) TN MAC 433, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the award amount with accrued interest. The appellant is directed to pay appropriate Court fees within a period of two months, failing which, she is not entitled to claim interest on the award amount. On such deposit, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the award amount with accrued interest. The appellant is directed to pay appropriate Court fees within a period of two months, failing which, she is not entitled to claim interest on the award amount. No costs.