Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2029 (MAD)

Umayamma v. C. Raju

2022-07-12

P.T.ASHA

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for enhancement of compensation in the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2017 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1636 of 2016 on the file of MACT/Principal District Court at Namakkal.) The parents of the deceased Arjun Chandran are the appellants before this Court challenging the award passed by the MACT (Principal District Court, Namakkal) in M.C.O.P.No.1636 of 2016 dated 19.04.2017. 2. It is the case of the appellants that the said Arjun Chandran, who is 23 years old, a 4th year Electrical and Electronics Engineering student had died in a road accident on 23.08.2016. 3. It is their case that on 23.08.2016, at about 11.30 p.m., the deceased Arjun Chandran was riding his Bajaj Pulsar two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-30-D-1816 on the Sankagiri to Salem main road and he was travelling in a West to East direction. At the same time, driver of an auto bearing Registration No.TN-30-AJ-8606 came from the opposite direction and the driver was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle in which the said Arjun Chandran was riding. As a result of which, he had fallen down and sustained severe injuries on his body. Though he was rushed to the hospital, steps taken to save him failed and ultimately, on 25.08.2016, he had passed away. Therefore, the appellants have claimed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son in the accident. 4. The first and second respondents remained ex-parte, ultimately, the Tribunal fastened the negligence on the driver of the auto bearing Registration No.TN-30-AJ-8606 and the first and second respondents were made liable being the owner and the insurer respectively of the said auto. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had adopted a notional income of Rs.10,000/-, considering the fact that the deceased was a final year student of Vinayaka Mission-s Engineering College. The Tribunal had awarded a total sum of Rs.16,20,000/- as compensation after adding 50% towards the future prospects and deducting 50% towards his personal expenses. Challenging the said award and seeking enhancement, the appellants are before this Court. 5. The Tribunal had awarded a total sum of Rs.16,20,000/- as compensation after adding 50% towards the future prospects and deducting 50% towards his personal expenses. Challenging the said award and seeking enhancement, the appellants are before this Court. 5. Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the Tribunal had erred in fixing a notional income of just a sum of Rs.10,000/- without taking into account the educational qualification of the deceased Arjun Chandran. The Tribunal, according to him, ought to have fixed the notional income at a sum of Rs.20,000/-. He had relied upon the following judgments in support of his above contentions :- (i) In the case of Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs. Neela and another reported in 2019 (2) TN MAC 153 (DB); (ii) In the case of The Managing Director, TNSTC (VPM) Ltd., Villupuram & another Vs. Bharanidharan & another reported in CDJ 2019 MHC 5187; (iii) In the case of Basanti Devi & another Vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others reported in 2022 (1) TN MAC 148 (SC); (iv) Judgment dated 17.03.2022 passed in C.M.A.No.1639 of 2021 in the case of Maanivizhi & 3 others Vs. Suresh Babu & another.; (v) Judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed in C.M.A.No.1847 & 2251 of 2017 in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Amudhavalli & 2 others, Amuthavalli & another Vs. Senthamarai Kannan & another. 6. Per contra, Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the educational records of the deceased i.e., now been produced would show that the deceased is not a bright student and it appears that on account of his previous poor performances, he has been transferred from Kerala to Salem. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- adopted by the Tribunal is well in order. 7. Heard the counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Today on the directions of this Court, the appellants has produced the grade copy of the said Arjun Chandran of his first to fifth semesters issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. The said documents have been perused by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well. As per the grade card, it is seen that the said Arjun Chandran was not a bright student and he has been compelled to leave the College. The said documents have been perused by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well. As per the grade card, it is seen that the said Arjun Chandran was not a bright student and he has been compelled to leave the College. This fact is confirmed on a perusal of Ex.P12, the Transfer Certificate issued by the Vinayaka Missions Engineering University. This document would show that the said Arjun Chandran had been admitted into their University in the sixth semester. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants relate to students who have excelled in their academics unlike the instant case. However, this does not preclude the likelihood of the deceased Arjun Chandran doing well in his future. Therefore, the notional income can be taken at a sum of Rs.15,000/-, out of which, 50% has to be added towards future prospects i.e., a sum of Rs.7,500/-, which totals a sum of Rs.22,500/-. Of this, 50% has to be deducted for personal expenses. Therefore, the monthly contribution to the family would be a sum of Rs.11,250/-. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier to be adopted is 18. Therefore, the amount awarded under the head of loss of income/dependency would be a sum of Rs.24,30,000/-, which is as follows : Loss of Income Amount in Rs. Notional income (Per month) 15,000 Add: Future Prospects (Rs.15,000 x 50%) (Per month) 7,500 22,500 Less: Personal expenses (50%, since bachelor) (Rs.22,500/- x 50%) (Per month) 11,250 11,250 Notional income (per annum) (Rs.11,250/- x 12) 1,35,800 Multiplier 18 Total 24,30,000 9.It is also seen that the amounts under the head of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection have not been granted as per the dicta laid down by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680. Therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is granted under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.80,000/- is granted under the head of love and affection to the appellants herein. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680. Therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is granted under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.80,000/- is granted under the head of love and affection to the appellants herein. Therefore, the modified compensation is as follows: Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (Amount in Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Amount in Rs.) Loss of Income 16,20,000 24,30,000 (enhanced) Loss of love and affection (40,000 x 2) 5,000 80,000 (enhanced) Ex.P9 Medical Bills 1,06,777 1,06,777 Transport Expenses 5,000 10,000 (enhanced) Funeral Expenses 10,000 Loss of Estate 3,000 5,000 (enhanced) Total 17,39,777 26,41,777 10. The appeal is allowed and the impugned Award of the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.17,39,777/- to Rs.26,41,777/-. The second respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1636 of 2016 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, 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 claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already withdrawn. The claimants are directed to pay the necessary Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall not disburse the enhanced amount till such time the certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee is produced by the claimants. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.