Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2356 (MAD)

Poongodi v. B. Sakthimani

2025-04-28

S.SOUNTHAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.Sounthar, J. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.529 of 2019, dated 04.03.2020, the claimants have come before this Court seeking enhancement. 2. According to the appellants/claimants, the husband of the 1 st claimant, father of the claimants 2 to 4 and son of the 5 th claimant namely Manivel died in a road accident that had occurred on 21.10.2018. According to them, the deceased was proceeding in his Hero Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-24-H-5355 from Kaveripattinam Town to Dharmapuri NH Road slowly and steadily. At that point of time, the Eicher 1090 Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-29-AM-8852 belonged to the 1 st respondent and insured with the 2 nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained head injury and other multiple injuries and died. Therefore, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. 3. The 1 st respondent-owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal and the Insurer of the offending vehicle alone contested the claim by filing counter. According to the 2 nd respondent- Insurer, the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 1 st appellant/1 st claimant was examined as PW.1 and an eye-witness namely Sathishkumar was examined as PW.2 and 15 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15 on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 5. The Tribunal based on the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and contents of FIR-Ex.P1, came to the conclusion that accident had occurred only due to negligence on the part of the driver of the Eicher vehicle belonged to the 1 st respondent and insured with the 2 nd respondent. The compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.15,37,416/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have come before this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent-Insurance Company have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence and liability. Therefore, facts necessary to decide those questions are not discussed in this judgment. 7. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent-Insurance Company have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence and liability. Therefore, facts necessary to decide those questions are not discussed in this judgment. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Tribunal fixed notional income only at Rs.9,000/- and the same is very meagre one and hence, requires enhancement. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month. 9. In the claim petition, it was stated by the claimants that the deceased was engaged in Coconut Business and other seasonal business and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. However, in order to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. Even if there is no proof of income, this Court by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case can fix the notional income. In the case on hand, the accident had occurred in the year 2018. Therefore, taking into consideration the date of accident and the prevailing cost of living, this Court is inclined to fix Rs.16,500/- as notional income for the deceased. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased based on Ex.P2-Post Mortem Certificate at 45 years. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 25% enhancement towards future prospects. The applicable multiplier is 14. Since there are five dependents, 1/4 th of the amount shall be deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is fixed at Rs.25,98,750/- (Rs.16,500 x 1.25 x 12 x 14 x 3/4). 10. In addition to the above said amount, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The 1 st claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of consortium to wife. The minor claimants 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. The 5 th claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head parental consortium. 11. In view of the discussions made earlier, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows:- 12. The minor claimants 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. The 5 th claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head parental consortium. 11. In view of the discussions made earlier, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows:- 12. Accordingly, the total compensation payable to the claimants is enhanced to Rs.28,28,750/- from Rs.15,37,416/- awarded by the Tribunal. Out of the above said amount, the 5 th claimant is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/-. The minor claimants 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- each. The 1 st claimant is entitled to Rs.11,28,750/-. 13. The 2 nd Respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount of Rs.28,28,750/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition to the date of realisation, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.529 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants 1 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount by making formal application before the Tribunal. 14. The share of the minor claimants 2 to 4 shall be deposited in anyone of the Nationalized Banks under a Fixed Deposit Scheme for a period of three years which shall be renewed periodically until they attain majority and the 1 st appellant/1 st claimant, being the Natural Guardian of the minor claimants 2 to 4, is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon once in three months and the same shall be used for the welfare of the minor claimants 2 to 4. 15. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The appellants are directed to pay applicable additional court fee. It is made clear that the appellants/claimants are not entitled to claim interest for the delay period of 1003 days as per the order made in C.M.P.No.5219 of 2025, dated 04.04.2025. No costs.