Partly allowed

Tmt.Thenmozhi v. S.Devarajan

Madras HC20 Oct 2014CMA/3049/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court modified the compensation award by fixing the deceased's monthly income at Rs.3600 and applying a multiplier of 15, enhancing the total payable amount to Rs.4,52,000. The Court denied interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.4,52,000; deposit within two months; no interest on delayed period.

Tmt.Thenmozhi Vs S.Devarajan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.10.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

C.M.A. No. 3049 of 2014

¶6

Smt. Thenmozhi
2. Balakrishnan ...Appellants/Petitioners

¶7

Vs.
1. S. Devarajan
2. R. Pugalandhi
3. The Manager,
The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Motor 3 rd Party Claim Office,
No.751, Anna Salai, III floor,
Chennai -2
(1 st and 2 nd respondents are set ex parte
before the Court below. Hence notice
may be dispensed with) ...Respondents/Eespondents

¶8

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 as against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012 made in M.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Court No.II) Kanchipuram.

¶9

Challenging the judgment and decree of the Tribunal dated 18.01.2012, in M.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2010, the claimants are before this Court in this appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

¶10

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

¶11

The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, by name, Perumal, aged about 17 years, filed the claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs. The Tribunal, on analyzing the evidence on record, awarded Rs.2 lakhs as compensation, as claimed by the appellants. However, stating that the Tribunal should have granted compensation, by taking the notional income as Rs.4500/-, as prayed for by the claimants and that in view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 358 (SC), the compensation awarded is liable to be enhanced, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants.

¶12

However, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would object for enhancement as there is a delay of nearly 2 years in filing the above appeal seeking enhancement.

¶13

It is an admitted case that the Tribunal has passed the award on 18.01.2012 in respect of the accident that took place on 25.01.2004. The decision of the Honourable Apex Court, now relied on by the appellants, reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 358 (SC) would not have been available on the date of the judgment of the Tribunal. Though the compensation, as claimed by the appellants, has been granted by the Tribunal, in entirety, since, the appellants feel that the monthly income of the deceased should have been fixed more than Rs.1500/-; considering the objection raised by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent and taking note of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2014 (2) SCC 735 (Syed Sadiq V. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.),, this Court feels it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3600/-. After deducting one-third towards personal expenses and adopting multiplier 15, the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is modified as follows:

¶14

Monthly Income : Rs.3600/Deduction towards personal Expenses : Rs.3600 – (1/3x 3600) Contribution to the family : Rs.2400/- per month Annual contribution : Rs.2400 x12 Applying multiplier 15 : Rs.2400 x 12 x 15 Loss of Income : Rs. 4,32,000/-.

¶15

The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads remain unchanged. Hence, the total compensation payable to the claimants works out to Rs. 4,52,000/-.The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal remains the same.

¶16

The 3^rd respondent Insurance Company, shall deposit the entire amount, as per the modified award passed by this Court, with interest and costs, within a period of 2 months from the date of

¶17

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

¶18

receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants/appellants are entitled to withdraw the same, as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, by making necessary application, However, it is made clear that the claimants would not be entitled to interest on the award amount for the period of delay of 515 days in approaching this Court, as ordered by this Court in M.P. No. 2 of 2014, while condoning the delay on 14.10.2014. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nv
To
The II Dist. Judge,
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kanchipuram.
1 CC to Mr.S. Vadivel, Advocate SR.No. 50046
1 CC to Mr.C. Prabakaran, Advocate SR.No. 50185
C.M.A. No. 3049 of 2014
GP (CO)
PSI (08.01.2015)

¶20

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

Tmt.Thenmozhi v. S.Devarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.Thenmozhi v. S.Devarajan

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

A.Abbas Vs Jarina Begum

The New India Assurance Vs M.Velumani

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R. Rani

The Managing Director Vs Dhanapalan

M.Sundari Muthukrishnan Vs Sutherland Global Services

Brnach Manger United Vs Veerammal W/O.Velvamani Sithan