Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3294 (MAD)

Kolanchi v. S. Chandirasekar

2022-09-14

P.T.ASHA

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Perambalur, insofar as the same are against the appellant, and for enhancement of compensation.) 1. The 1st petitioner before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perambalur in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.85 of 2008 are the appellants before this Court seeking enhancement of the Award passed in the above claim petition. 2. The parties, for ease of understanding, are referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners are the son and daughters of one Palaniammal, who had died in a road accident on 29.03.2006. The petitioners would submit that their mother who was aged 62 years at the time of the accident was an agricultural coolie, earning a monthly income of Rs.2,000/-. On the said date, when she was walking on the road in a West-East direction, the lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, bearing Registration No.TN 30 K 7231, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased pedestrian from the rear causing her death. 4. The petitioners had claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. The first respondent remained ex-parte and it was the second respondent-Insurance Company, which has contested the claim. They had denied the manner of accident, age, income and compensation claimed by the petitioners. They would also allege negligence on the part of the deceased pedestrian. 5. The Tribunal below, after considering the evidence on record, held that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's lorry. 6. With reference to the quantum, the Tribunal below had adopted a notional income of Rs.1,500/- and had awarded a sum of Rs.78,000/- as compensation. The petitioners would challenge the same on the ground that the Award was highly disproportionate and requested for enhancement of the same. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company and perused the materials on record. 8. The accident had occurred in the year 2006. The deceased was admittedly aged about 62 years and working as a coolie, there is no proof to substantiate the said claim. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company and perused the materials on record. 8. The accident had occurred in the year 2006. The deceased was admittedly aged about 62 years and working as a coolie, there is no proof to substantiate the said claim. However, it can be safely concluded that as a coolie, she would have earned minimum sum of Rs.2,000/- per month and that her annual income would work out to a sum of Rs.24,000/-, from this 1/3 has to be deducted towards her personal expenses and therefore, the contribution to the family would be a sum of Rs.16,000/- per year. She had died at the age of 62 years and therefore, the appropriate multiplier that is to be adopted is 5. Therefore, under the head of loss of income, the amount would be a sum of Rs.80,000/-[Rs.16,000 x 5]. The petitioners are all married and not in anyway dependent on their mother. The loss of love and affection is enhanced to a sum of Rs.20,000/- as against a sum of Rs.12,000/- granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the re-worked compensation would be as follows:- Heads Amount by the Tribunal in Rs. Amount Awarded by this Court in Rs. Loss of income 60,000 (12,000 x 5) 80,000 (16,000 x 5) Funeral Expenses 3,000 3,000 Loss of Amenities 3,000 3,000 Loss of love and affection 12,000 20,000 Total 78,000 1,06,000 9. The appeal is partly allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.78,000/- to Rs.1,06,000/-. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008 along with interest (except for the period from 14.10.2008 to 30.06.2011) 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 accrued proportionate interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with accrued proportionate interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall not disburse the enhanced amount till such time as the certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee has been produced by the claimants. In other respects, the Award of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.