Allowed

A. Paulien v. G. Ravichandran

Madras HC3 Nov 2014CMA/2986/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded for the death of a husband in a motor accident. The Tribunal's assessment of monthly income was confirmed, but monies for consortium and loss of affection were increased, raising the award to Rs. 5,00,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 4,36,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest on the enhanced amount.

A. Paulien Vs G. Ravichandran — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

C.M.A. No.2986 of 2014

¶6

A. Paulien
2. A. Phileeda Mary
3. A. Antric Raj ...Appellants/Claimants
Vs.
1. G. Ravichandran
(remained ex parte before
the Trial Court)
2. Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No. 45 & 46, Whites Road,
Chennai – 600 014. ...Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act as
against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2012 in MACT O.P. No.
4500 of 2007 on the file of Chief Judge, Small Causes Court (Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.R. Kalaiarasan
For Respondents : Mr.N. Vijayaraghavan for R2
R1 - Exparte

¶7

The claimants are before this Court aggrieved over the quantum of award granted for the death of the 1^st appellant's husband in the accident that took place on 25.10.2007.

¶8

Heard Mr.R. Kalai Arasan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, Insurance Company.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

The grievance of the claimants is that the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- only and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses, determined Rs.3000/per month as dependency. According to the claimants, the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards consortium is very low and the amounts awarded towards loss of love and affection to appellants 2 and 3 are also very low. Hence, they prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶11

However, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company opposed the claim made by the appellants.

¶12

Heard both parties and perused the records.

¶13

A perusal of the records would show that the Tribunal had taken into consideration, the occurrence of the accident on 25.10.2007, and other evidence available to determine the monthly income of the deceased as there were no records available before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the 1^st appellant's husband was earning about Rs.6000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal had, rightly, taken the monthly income as Rs.4500/- and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses, arrived at Rs.3000/- per month as dependency, which is in consonance with the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2011 (2) TNMAC 190 SC (Sri Ramachandrappa V. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company) wherein the Apex Court determined the dependency, in the absence of any evidence, as Rs.3000/-. Therefore, the same cannot be found fault with.

¶14

As far as the contention of the claimants that the amount awarded towards "Loss of Consortium" is very low is concerned, a further sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the said head in the light of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2013) 3 CTC 883 (Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others ), wherein it has been observed that "it would only be just and reasonable that the Courts award at least rupees one lakh for "Loss of Consortium". As far as "Loss of love and affection" is concerned, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded to each of appellants 2 and 3. Considering the fact that the 2^nd and 3^rd appellants are majors, a further sum of Rs.7000/- is awarded to each of them and in view of that, each one of them would be entitled to a sum of Rs.17,000/towards "Loss of love and affection".

¶15

In the result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.4,36,000/- is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- and in other respects, the finding of the Tribunal stands confirmed. The apportionment of the enhanced compensation amount shall be as ordered by the Tribunal and for the enhanced amount, namely, Rs.64,000/-, the appellants are entitled to interest at the rate as awarded by the Tribunal from

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

today.

¶18

The 2^nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the claimants within a period of two weeks. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nv
To
The Chief Judge,
The Court of Small Causes,
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
1 CC to Mr.N.M. Muthuraja, Advocate SR.No. 51976
1 CC to Mr.M.B. Gopalan, Advocate SR.No. 51978
C.M.A. No. 2986 of 2014
KJI (CO)
PSI (18.11.2014)

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A. Paulien v. G. Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Paulien v. G. Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thanseela Begam Vs P.Kaleeswaran

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

Raghu Vs the Superintendent of Police

Branch Manager Vs P.Murugan

The Oriental Insurance Vs Sakunthala

M. Vellingiri Vs M. Pazhanisami