Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3299 (MAD)

R. Soundrapandiyan v. A. R. N. Suresh

2022-09-14

P.T.ASHA

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 26.11.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.88 of 2007 by the learned Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar and held that the second respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation allowing the above CMA.) 1. The petitioners are the appellants herein seeking enhancement of the Award passed in M.C.O.P.No.88 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Cheyyar. 2. The facts in brief, which are necessary for disposing of the above petition are herein below narrated. 3. The appellants had filed the claim petition seeking a compensation for the death of their daughter, Abhirami in a road accident on 14.08.2006. The said Abhirami was aged about 22 years and doing her 3rd year bachelor's decree in Audiology speech language, pathology, at Ramachandra Medical College, Chennai. They had claimed a compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. It is the case of the appellants that on the said date, at about 16.45 hours, when Abhirami was proceeding in a Hero Honda motor cycle, a container lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company had come from the rear and hit against the vehicle in which the said Abhirami was travelling. The said Abhirami died on the spot. 4. The first respondent, owner of the container lorry had not participated in the proceedings and was set ex-parte. 5. The second respondent-Insurance Company had questioned the compensation claimed by the appellants. They had further submitted that the said Abhirami did not possess an effective driving licence for driving her two wheeler and the compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive, considering the fact that the deceased was a student at the time of accident. They had also put the first respondent to strict proof of the fact that the vehicle had a subsisting insurance cover, permit and the driver of the lorry had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the driver of the container lorry was equally responsible for the death of the said Abhirami and a compensation of a sum of Rs.4,31,000/- was awarded. The Tribunal had adopted a notional income of Rs.4,000/-, from out of which, 50% was deducted towards the personal expenses. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the driver of the container lorry was equally responsible for the death of the said Abhirami and a compensation of a sum of Rs.4,31,000/- was awarded. The Tribunal had adopted a notional income of Rs.4,000/-, from out of which, 50% was deducted towards the personal expenses. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have moved this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, the deceased was a medical student and her prospects after her graduation would definitely be good. Therefore, a sum of Rs.4,500/- is taken towards the notional income, to which, 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income would be a sum of Rs.6,300/-, out of which, the deceased being a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards the personal expenses leaving a sum of Rs.3,150/- as monthly contribution to the family. Considering the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 18 has to be adopted. Therefore, the amount under the head of loss of dependency would stand enhanced to a sum of Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.3,150 x 12 x 18), which is as follows:- Heads Amount by the Tribunal in Rs. Amount Awarded by this Court in Rs. Loss of income 3,84,000 (2,000 x 12 x 16) 6,80,400 (3,150 x 12 x 18) Funeral Expenses 5,000 5,000 Transportation 2,000 2,000 Loss of love and affection (Rs.20,000/- each) 40,000 40,000 Total 4,31,000 7,27,400 9. The appeal is partly allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.4,31,000/- to Rs.7,27,400/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount jointly and severally to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.88 of 2007 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. The said amount shall be apportioned amongst the claimants as per the Award of the Tribunal. 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 said amount shall be apportioned amongst the claimants as per the Award of the Tribunal. 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.