Allowed

A. Magesh v. R. Muralidharan

Madras HC27 Jul 2015CMA/1342/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's compensation order. The Court enhanced the award from Rs.8,25,000 to Rs.18,25,000 by re-determining the deceased's monthly income, adopting a higher multiplier, and awarding substantial amounts for loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.18,25,000 along with interest at 7.5% per annum; respondent directed to deposit the amount.

A. Magesh Vs R. Muralidharan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.07.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1342 of 2015

¶6

1.A. Magesh 2.Pachaimmal 3.A.Kalaiarasan (Minor) 4.A.Anandha Priya (Minor) ... Appellants/Petitioners (3^rd & 4^th minor appellants are represented by their mother Mageshwari as natural guardian and next friend 1^st appellant) vs. 1.R.Muralidharan 2.National Insurance Company Limited, No.62A, J.N. Street, Pondicherry - 1. ... Respondents / Respondents

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2012 made in MACTOP No.2457 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.V.Velu For Respondents : Mr.S.Arunkumar for R2 JUDGMENT

¶9

The appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the amount of Rs.8,25,000/- awarded by the tribunal as compensation for the death of one Anandan aged about 23 years alleged to be working in Salt Manufacturing Unit at Marakkanam and earning about Rs.7500/- per month who died in the accident occurred on 04.05.2008.

¶10

Heard Mr.V.Velu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurance company.

¶11

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

¶12

The only question to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶13

Even though PW3, employee employee of the deceased was examined as witness who spoke about drawing of Rs.5000/- per month from him and Rs.6,000/- independently from the business of the deceased, the tribunal did not believe the said evidence and determined the income at Rs.5,000/- per month. After deducting 1/4^th towards personal expenses and adopting multiplier 17, awarded a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- towards loss of income and including other amounts, awarded a sum of Rs.8,25,000/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants.

¶14

The accident occurred in the year 2008. There is no proof regarding the income of Rs.7500/- per month by the deceased even though PW3 spoke about that. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co. reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 (SC) determined the monthly income at Rs.6,500/- for a vegetable vendor who sustained injury in the accident occurred in the year 2008. After adding future prospects at 50%, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited case determined the monthly income at Rs.9,750/-. In this case also, the accident occurred in the year 2008. Hence, following the above said judgment, this Court re-determines the monthly income of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged 23 years at the time of accident, 50% is added towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income is determined as Rs.9,750/- [Rs.6500 + 50%].

¶15

The size of the family is four. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corpn. reported in 2009 (2) TANMAC 1, 1/4^th is deducted towards personal expenses and multiplier 18 is applied following the very same judgment instead of 17 as adopted by the tribunal. Thus, the loss of income is determined as follows -

¶16

Rs.6500 + 50% + Rs.9750 x ¾ x 12 x 18 = Rs.15,79,500/-

¶17

The age of the first appellant/claimant at the time of accident is 20 years. Loosing husband itself is very painful, that too at the age of age of 20 years alongwith minor children would definitely cause psychological pain and such pain cannot be compensated in terms of money. In any event, in an endeavour to compensate towards loss of consortium, this court awards a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & ors. reported in 2013 (3) CTC 883. Similarly, the appellants 3 and 4, minor children were aged 4 and 2 years respectively at the time of accident and they lost their father's love, care and affection at the tender age and therefore, they should be sufficiently compensated. The amount awarded at Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love & affection is very meagre and negligible and therefore a sum of Rs.1 lakh in toto is awarded to

¶18

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

¶19

them. Similarly, the 2^nd appellant, mother of the deceased, lost her son and therefore a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to her. Rs.5,000/awarded towards funeral expenses is too low and no amount was awarded towards transportation and therefore a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded together under this head. Thus, the amount of Rs.8,25,000/- awarded by the tribunal is hereby enhanced to Rs.18,24,500/-, rounded off to Rs.18,25,000/-, break-up as follows -

¶20

(4) Loss of love & affection to the 3^rd & 4^th respondents... Rs. 1,00,000/-

¶21

The rate of interest awarded by the tribunal at 7.5% per annum is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.

¶22

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,25,000/- to Rs.18,25,000/alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. No costs.

¶23

The 2^nd respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the entire amount awarded by this court, alongwith interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1^st appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs.6,25,000/- and the 2^nd appellant/claimant is permitted to withdarw Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith proportionate interest and costs. The 3^rd and 4^th appellants/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each alongwith proportionate interest and costs. The tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimants in Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Chennai in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit, till the minors attain majority.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is directed to pay the requisite court fee for the enhanced compensation, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rgr
To
1. The IV Judge,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section Officer, High Court, Chennai-104
+1cc to Mr.V. Velu, Advocate, S.R.No.38680
+1cc to Mr.S. Arunkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.38361
CTK(CO)
EU(04/09/2015)
C.M.A.No.1342 of 2015

¶27

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

A. Magesh v. R. Muralidharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Magesh v. R. Muralidharan

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

The Managing Direector Vs Jayammal

The Manager Vs R.Krishnamurthy

Dakshinamurthi, Vs Banu

E.Mannammal Vs the Managing Director

M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs D.Murugan

The Managing Director Vs Tmt.M.Amirtham