Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Periyammal

Madras HC1 Aug 2017CMA/2369/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court corrected the calculation of future loss of income by deducting personal expenses before applying it to the multiplier and enhanced awards for consortium, love and affection, and funeral expenses to Rs. 11,53,520 total.

What did the court decide?

The compensation is enhanced to Rs. 11,53,520 with interest at 7.5% per annum; the deposit liability is shared equally between the appellant and the insurer.

The Managing Director Vs Periyammal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.08.2017

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶4

CMA.No.2369 of 2014 and MP.No.1 of 2014

¶5

The Managing Director,
TNSTC, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem Town,
Salem District,
Salem-7. .. Appellant/1 st Respondent
Vs.
1.Periyammal
2.R.Vijayalakshmi
3.R.Vijayakumar
4.R.Vijayavel
5.R.Vijayarasi .. Respondents 1 to 5/Petitioners
6.C.Nandhan
7.The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited
I Floor, TMN Complex,
No.136, M.B.T. Road,
Pakkiam, Ranipettai, Vellore District.
.. Respondents 6 & 7/Respondents 2 & 3

¶6

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2013 made in MCOP. No.478 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶7

For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatachalam For Respondents : Mr.M.Selvam [RR1 to 5] JUDGMENT

¶8

A certain Raja was working as a conductor under the appellantTransport Corporation. On 21.10.2007 at about 3.30 a.m., while he was on duty in the bus bearing registration No.TN29N 1814, he was killed along with another passenger of the bus when the bus dashed against a lorry belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent before the Tribunal. The victim was aged 57 years at that relevant time and was earning

¶9

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

¶10

Rs.12,420/- per month. Besides, he was also stated to be doing milk business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Claiming a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, his widow and four children moved the Tribunal. On assessing the evidence before it, the Tribunal held that the drivers of both the vehicles in question were equally negligent for the occurrence of the accident, determined the compensation payable at Rs.12,95,176/with interest @ 7.5% per annum and directed that it be apportioned equally between the Transport Corporation that owns the bus and the insurance company with which the lorry involved in the accident was insured.

¶11

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one fundamental flaw in the approach of the Tribunal was that it added 30% of Raja's last drawn salary towards his future prospects, and in the process it ignored the fact that Raja was aged 57 years and was not self-employed to attract the principle laid down in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others [(2013) 9 SCC 54] read with Sarala Varma case [(2009) 6 SCC 121].

¶12

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would argue that on the heads of non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal has been unduly parsimonious and denied the claimants the just and fair compensation.

¶13

A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has calculated the sum awarded as indicated in the table below :

¶14

Heads of Compensation	Amount Awarded (Rs.)
Future loss of income	12,55,176.00
Funeral Expenses	2,000.00
Loss of consortium	10,000.00
Towards transportation	3,000.00
Loss of love and affection	20,000.00
@ Rs.5,000/- each [Rs.5,000x4]
Total :	12,95,176.00

¶15

Acting on Ext.P10, salary certificate, the Tribunal reckoned his net salary received by the victim at Rs.11,920/- and as per Sarala Varma dictum, it added 30% towards his future prospects and arrived at the monthly salary of Rs.15,496/- and applying a multiplier 9, it arrived at a sum of Rs.16,73,568/[Rs.15,496x12x9] and from it deducted 1/4 towards the personal expenses of the deceased and arrived at a sum Rs.12,55,176/- on the head of loss of future income.

¶16

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

¶17

This, as per the dictum aforesaid is plainly untenable. After allowing permissible deduction from the gross salary of the victim, the net salary arrived is Rs.11,920/-. From this 30% is deducted towards the personal expenses, and the balance available for monthly support of the family is Rs.8,940/-. Applying a multiplier of 9, the compensation payable towards loss of pendency would be Rs.9,65,520/-[Rs.8,940x12x9]. Towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has granted only Rs.10,000/-, but this has to be increased to Rs.75,000/-. For love and affection, I enhance it to Rs.25,000/- each . Even on the head of funeral expenses, the award amount is required to be increased to Rs.10,000/-. The break-up details of the revised award amount of compensation reads as follows :

¶18

Heads of Compensation Future loss of income	Revised Amount (Rs.) 9,65,520.00
Funeral Expenses	10,000.00
Loss of consortium	75,000.00
Towards transportation	3,000.00
Loss of love and affection	1,00,000.00
@ Rs.25,000/- each
[Rs.25,000x4]
Total :	11,53,520.00

¶19

In the result, the appeal is partially allowed and the appellant and the insurer of the lorry are directed to deposit the revised compensation amount of Rs.11,53,520 with interest at 7.5% per annum, each ones share of liability being 50% of the total, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and in case the entire amount as fixed by the Tribunal was already deposited by the appellant, it is permitted to withdraw the amount in excess of that which is now determined as compensation. Upon such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares forthwith in the same ratio as that was done by the Tribunal in its award. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

To: 1.The Additional District Judge Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chennai.

¶24

The Section Officer VR Section High Court, Madras.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.D.VENKATACHALAM, Advocate, S.R.No. 55063
C.M.A.No.2369 of 2014
PVS(CO)
TR(11/01/2018)

¶26

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

The Managing Director v. Periyammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Periyammal

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

N. Mani Vs Pachaiyee Koil

Viswanathan Vs S.Rajagopal

Jessil Kaitor Vs Madras Road Lines,Office

C.Shanmugam Vs R.Kuilsamy

M.Ramasamy Vs R.Rajendran

The Managing Director Vs Parvathy