Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3387 (MAD)

Vijaya v. Gunasekar

2022-09-19

P.T.ASHA

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgement dated 02.08.2013 MACT.O.P.No.5869 of 2011, on the file of the IV Small Causes Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.) 1. The legal heirs of the deceased Suresh who are the petitioners before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, are the appellants before this Court. The appellants had filed the above claim petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- for the death of the said Suresh in a road accident on 08.07.2011. 2. It is the case of the appellants that on the said date at about 3.45 PM, the deceased was walking alone at Chennai Bangalore highway and when he neared Saint Gobian Co., a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.TN 23 AM 0151 belonging to the 1st respondent and driven by him in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased from behind causing fatal injuries to him. The appellants had therefore claimed a compensation from the 1st respondent being the owner cum driver and the 2nd respondent, the insurer. 3. Though the 1st respondent had entered appearance through counsel, later he did not file his counter and therefore was set ex parte. 4. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter inter alia denying the allegations contained in the claim statement and stating that the appellants had sought for an excessive compensation as they had denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. 5. The Tribunal by its award dated 02.08.2013 proceeded to hold that the accident had occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and had fixed a notional income of Rs.6,000/-. After deducting a 1/5th amount towards personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of 17, the Tribunal arrived at a pecuniary loss of Rs.9,79,200/- and ultimately arrived at a total compensation of Rs.11,19,200/-. 6. The appellants are aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal below has failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.3, the employer of the deceased who had deposed that the deceased was working in his shop and earning at least a sum of Rs.500/- to Rs.550/- per day. The witness would state that the deceased was engaged in fixing punctures. Further, the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under the head of loss of love and affection. 7. The witness would state that the deceased was engaged in fixing punctures. Further, the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under the head of loss of love and affection. 7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the accident had taken place in the year 2011 and the appellants had in their claim petition stated that the deceased is a Mechanic cum Driver, whereas, P.W.3 would submit that he is engaged in fixing punctures. Therefore, the notional income adopted is in order and does not require any revision. That apart, the amounts awarded under the other heads also are well in order. 8. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records. 9. The appellants have examined P.W.3 to show that the deceased Suresh was working under him and there is no rebuttal to the same. Therefore, a notional income of Rs.7,500/- can be adopted. 10. It is also seen that the Tribunal has not granted any amounts towards future prospects. Therefore, monthly notional income would be Rs.7,500/- + Rs.3,000/- = Rs.10,500/-. The annual notional income would be a sum of Rs.1,26,000/-. Out of this amount, 1/5th has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the annual contribution to the family would be a sum of Rs.1,00,800/-. To this, a multiplier of 17 has to adopted and the amount under the head of pecuniary loss will work out to a sum of Rs.17,13,600/-. 11. The appellants 2 to 6 are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of Love and Affection. That apart, a sum of Rs.15,000/- has to be awarded under the head of Loss of Estate. Therefore, the compensation shall be enhanced to a sum of Rs.18,88,600/-. 12. The award of the Tribunal below is re-worked as follows: Heads Award of the Tribunal Award of the High Court Pecuniary Loss Rs.9,79,200/- Rs.17,13,600/- Loss of Consortium to the 1st appellant Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Loss of Love and Affection Rs.80,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Loss of Estate ............... Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.11,19,200/- Rs.18,88,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 13. The minor appellants 2 to 4 will be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,80,000/-, each. The 5th appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The 6th appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1st appellant, the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.4,48,600/-. 14. Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.11,19,200/- Rs.18,88,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 13. The minor appellants 2 to 4 will be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,80,000/-, each. The 5th appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The 6th appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1st appellant, the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.4,48,600/-. 14. The respondents are directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement, to the credit of MACT.O.P.No.5869 of 2011. On such deposit, the major appellants are permitted to withdraw the award amount, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. 15. When the claim petition was filed in the year 2011, the 2nd appellant was aged about 8 years. Now, the 2nd appellant should be aged about 19 years and is therefore, a major. Though no application has been taken out to declare her as a major, this Court suo motu takes into account the age given in the claim petition and also taking into account the efflux of time, declares the 2nd appellant as major and discharges her mother from the guardianship. 16. The share of the minor appellants, namely, the 3rd and 4th appellants is directed to be deposited in Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks till she attain majority. On such deposit, the 1st appellant being the mother of the minor appellant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in every three months for the welfare of the minor appellant. The appellants shall show proof of payment of the Court fees and only on such proof they shall be permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited. 17. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.