Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1075 (MAD)

Esakkithai v. Eison Nower

2022-05-06

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 06.08.2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award, dated 06.08.2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The claimants are the appellants herein, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4 .The claim petitioners, who are the sisters of the deceased Velmurugan, mason, filed the above M.C.O.P.No.231 of 2015 alleging that on 15.12.2014 at about 07.00 p.m., the deceased was standing on the centre median in order to cross from north to south on the Tirunelveli – Tuticorin Four Way Road at Manakarai Vilakku. At that time, a Maruti Omni bearing Registration No.TN-72-R-9019 belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent came from east to west in a high speed, rashly, negligently and without slow down on the zebra mark, hit the deceased, who was standing on the road. The deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot itself. A case under Section 304-A IPC has been registered by the Murappanadu Police Station in Crime No.284 of 2014 against the first respondent driver. 5. During trial, the first claim petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documents were produced. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence, had come to the conclusion that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent, which is insured with the second respondent / Insurance Company, he is at fault and caused the accident and awarded a compensation of Rs.11,05,200/-. Having not satisfied with the quantum, the claim petitioner have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance Company, relied upon the decision of this Court in Maruvammal and Others v. The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd., Villupuram, Kancheepuram Region reported in 2017(2) TN MAC 331 (DB) for arriving at the notional income in comparison with the rate of inflation and the same is taken note of. 9. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance Company, relied upon the decision of this Court in Maruvammal and Others v. The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd., Villupuram, Kancheepuram Region reported in 2017(2) TN MAC 331 (DB) for arriving at the notional income in comparison with the rate of inflation and the same is taken note of. 9. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was a mason. The accident was takenplace on 15.12.2014 and hence, this Court is of the view that the notional income is to be fixed at Rs.12,000/- and since the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 35, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC), multiplier of 16 is to be adopted and 40% has to be added towards future prospects and hence, the notional monthly income is fixed at Rs.16,800/- [12,000 + 4,800 = 16,800]. Taking into consideration that the deceased is a bachelor and the number of dependants being 3 in number, 50% of amount has to be deducted and hence, the pecuniary loss sustained by the claim petitioners is reassessed as under: Calculation Notional income Rs.12,000/- 40% Future Prospects Rs. 4,800/- Total = Rs.12,000 + Rs.4,800 Rs.16,800/- Loss of dependency Rs.16,800 X 12 X 16 - 50% deduction Rs.16,12,800/- 10. Since the deceased being a bachelor, died without getting marriage, all the three claim petitioners are entitled for consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- and accordingly, it comes to Rs.1,20,000/- [40,000 x 3 = 1,20,000]. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.17,62,800/-. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.11,05,200/- to Rs.17,62,800 /-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.11,05,200/- to Rs.17,62,800 /- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the Court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.11,05,200/- to Rs.17,62,800 /- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the Court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee. The second respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.17,62,800/- (if not already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court dealing with MCOP Cases, Tirunelveli, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made by the second respondent / Insurance Company, the appellants / petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the same, as apportioned by the Tribunal, after following due process of law.