High Court restored compensation in motor accident claim for death of deceased son, enhancing income from Rs.900 to Rs.4,500 per month and awarding Rs.8.30 lakhs.
Compensation awarded: Rs.8,29,600 with 7.5% interest from date of petition. Insurance company to deposit balance within 8 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.06.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.M.A(MD).No.563 of 2014
1.Adaikappa Chettiar 2.Lakshmi Achi 3.Meenal 4.Umayal 5.Chokkumeenal .. Appellants / Petitioners Vs.
1.K.Meenakshi 2.The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order and decree of dated 28.02.2003 in M.C.O.P.No.515 of 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukottai, (Fast Track Court), Pudukottai.
For Appellants : Mr.L.Palanimuthu For Respondent No.1 : No appearance For Respondent No. 2 : Mr.S.Ramesh
JUDGMENT
The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased are the appellants. The challenge is to the quantum of compensation.
2.While the claimants had claimed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as compensation for the death of the only son, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.95,600/- towards compensation. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.900/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses had applied a multiplier of 13, considering the age of the dependents and worked out the loss of dependency at Rs.93,600/- and has awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the total award was Rs.95,600/-.
3.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the salary certificate produced was only in respect of the part time https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ employment of the deceased and the deceased is a diploma holder from Annamalai Polytechnic and therefore there was high
2
probability of the deceased having earned more, if he had not met with the accident.
that the petitioner was only working as a part time employee in M/s.Karthick Raja Steel Industries Company, I do not think that A7 alone could be the basis for computing the income of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that even in the absence of any evidence to prove income, notional income can be assumed considering the qualification of the deceased person. Considering the fact that the deceased was a diploma holder and he died at the age of 21, I deem it fit to assume the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. The deceased had apart from his parents, three unmarried sisters, though they may not be totally dependent on him. There is no evidence to show that they were earning members.
| Head | Rs. | |
|---|---|---|
| For loss of of dependency | 7,77,600 | |
| For love and affection | 50,000 | |
| Funeral expenses | 2,000 | |
| Total | 8,29,600 |
The above total sum is rounded oabove total sum is rounded off to Rs.8,30,000/-. The Insurance Company shall deposit the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ balance amount along with 7.5% interest from the date of petition, till the date of payment, within a period of eight
3
Costs.
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukottai.
COPY TO: The Section Officer/Record keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1cc to M/S.AL.GANDHIMATHI, Advocate SR.No.61900 +1cc to M/S.V.RAGHAVACHARI, Advocate SR.No.62101
PJL
MAS/SV-MMS/SAR2:04.09.2017:3P-5C
C.M.A(MD).No.563 of 2014 23.06.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the weekly income of the deceased should be enhanced based on his qualification as a diploma holder rather than the salary certificate.
Whether the multiplier for age of 21 years should be 13 as per Tribunal or 18 as per Supreme Court judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport CorporationApplied¶5
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1.Adaikappa Chettiar 2.Lakshmi Achi 3.Meenal 4.Umayal 5.Chokkumeenal
1.K.Meenakshi 2.The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
R.Subramanian
Parties & counsel
