Partly allowed

Perumal v. Ramachandiran

Madras HC16 Jul 2019CMA/758/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident case. The Tribunal's multiplier was corrected based on Sarla Varma's guidelines, and amounts for loss of earning, love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate were increased.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,55,360/- to Rs. 7,42,876/-. Interest awarded at 7.5% per annum from date of claim. Amount directed to be deposited by respondents.

Perumal Vs Ramachandiran — Insurance | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.07.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. RAMATHILAGAM

¶5

C.M.A.No. 758 of 2015

¶6

Perumal

¶7

Minor Saravanan

¶8

Minor Illavarasi

¶9

Minor Iswarya ..Appellants/Claimants (Minors 2 to 4 Appellant rep by their father

¶10

1^st Appellant)

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Ramachandian

¶13

Branch Manager,

¶14

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

¶15

Having their Office at

¶16

Door No. 75, Krishnan Road, Thiruvannamalai.

¶17

.. Respondents/Respondents

¶18

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No. 959 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

¶19

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award 27.07.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No. 959 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

¶20

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

¶21

after finishing her personal work at Polur was returning to her village, she was travelled as one of the passengers in the 1st respondent's Renugambal Mini Bus bearing Reg.No. TN 25 -A 0238, when the bus was nearing Pattarai Kadu Pudur Bust Stop, the bus driven by its drier in a rash and negligence manner and dashed against the tree and capsized the bus and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the deceased Sivakumari and others sustained grievous injuries and fracture all over the body. The deceased Sivakumari sustained injuries on her head, hand, leg and sustained fracture all over the body and she was taken to the Jamunamaruthur Primary Health Centre and there she died inspite of treatment. The accident was taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's bus driver. The legal heirs of the deceased have claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

¶22

2.2 The Insurance Company in their counter statement denied the possession of valid driving licence by the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. It is further stated that driver of the alleged vehicle bearing reg. no. TN 25 A 0238 is also a necessary party to the proceedings and hence the petition is liable to be rejected inliminee for non-joinder of the alleged vehicle.

¶23

2.3 The tribunal upon analysing the oral pleadings and documents, has come to the conclusion that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent's bus driver and since the said vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company, both the 1st and 2nd respondents are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,55,360/as compensation under various heads. Aggrieved against the said award the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement.

¶24

Heard both sides and perused the documents available on records.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased who was working as Child Development Officer at Jamunamarathur and earning a sum of Rs.3573/- per month, for which Ex.P9 - Salary Certificate was also produced. But the tribunal has fixed the monthly income only at Rs.2,335/- which is very meagre. Further, the tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 towards personal expenses and ought to have added 50% of th e income towards future prospects. It is further contended by the appellants that though the claimants have submitted documents, the tribunal without considering the same, has awarded very less compensation under the other heads viz., loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, damaged to cloths. It is further contended that the

¶26

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

¶27

tribunal failed to award compensation for mental agony to the family members and loss of estate.

¶28

On perusal of records, it is seen that the liability fixed by the tribunal is purely based on the evidence of the PW1 & PW2 and the documents relating to the FIR. Further it is also seen that the tribunal by relying upon the Ex.P9 - Salary certificate issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Jamunamarathur, has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,335/- after deducting the personal expenses. This Court also confirms the said monthly income fixed by the tribunal. But, the tribunal has taken multiplier 18 which is against the guidelines and it is also seen that the tribunal has not added future prospects. Hence, as per the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma's Case, the multiplier 17 has to be taken in the case of the where the deceased was between the age group of 26 to 30 years. Here the age of the deceased is 28 at the time of the accident, hence it would be proper to modify the sum awarded under the head loss of earning by applying proper multiplier 17 and adding 40% of the income towards future prospects. Accordingly, the loss of earning is modified as Rs.6,66,876/- (2335+40% x12x17). Considering the claimants who are the Husband and the minor children of the deceased, this Court inclined to modify the sum under the head 'Loss of Love and affection. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the 1st claimant and Rs.30,000/- ( Rs.10,000/- each) to the claimants 2 to 4. Similarly, the sum awarded at Rs.10,000/under the head Funeral expenses & Transport charges is also enhanced at Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral expenses and Rs.5000/towards Transport charges. Since no sum is awarded under the head 'Loss of estate', a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the said head. The sum awarded for damage to cloth and articles is confirmed.

¶29

Thus, the sum awarded by the tribunal is modified by this Court as follows;

¶30

S.No	Description	Amount	Amount	Award
		awarded by Tribunal	awarded by this Court	confirmed or enhanced or
		(Rs)	(Rs)	granted
1.	Loss of	5,04,360	6,66,876/-	enhanced
	earning

¶31

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

¶32

2.	Loss of love and affection	40,000	55,000 (1st claimant -25,000/- claimants 2 to 4 - 30,000/- (10,000/- each)	enhanced
3.	Funeral expenses & Transport charges	10,000	20,000 (Funeral Expenses -15000 & Transport Expenses -5000)	enhanced
4.	Damage to cloth and articles	1,000	1000	confirmed
5.	Loss of Estate	--	1000	granted
	Total	5,55,360/-	7,42,876/-	Enhanced

¶33

6 . In the result,

¶34

(i)The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

(ii)The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,55,360/- to Rs. 742,876 /-, shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

¶36

(iii)The 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent / Transport Corporation are directed to deposit the entire amount, awarded by this Court along with interest and costs before the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the apportionment is unaltered. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the amount to the claimant's bank account through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereon.

¶37

(iv). The Appellants are directed to pay the necessary court fee for the enhanced award amount, if any. Since this Court by its order dated 23.03.2015 had condoned the delay of 946 days with condition that the appellants are not entitled for any

¶38

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

¶39

interest for the said delay period, the appellants/claimants are not entitled for interest amount for 946 days.

¶40

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

¶44

¶45

The District Judge, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Tiruvannamalai.

¶46

Copy to: The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶47

+1cc to M/s.M.Malar, Advocate, S.R.No.60197 +1cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate, S.R.No.60130

¶48

C.M.A.No.758 of 2015

¶49

RR(CO) CB(15/07/2021)

¶50

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

Perumal v. Ramachandiran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perumal v. Ramachandiran

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 Director Vs Chandra

Chidambaradasan Vs the Managing Director

Anitha Vs E.Vasanthakumar

The Divisional Manager Vs R. Rajathilagam

National Insurance Company Vs M.Murugesan

C.Rajasekar Vs the Managing Director