Appeal against MACT award enhancing compensation from Rs.7.42 lakh to Rs.9.57 lakh. Court revised monthly income to Rs.9,000/ failing to deduct personal share. Total compensation includes loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and other heads with interest.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.9,56,900/ with dependency on monthly income revised to Rs.9,000/.
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.
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 12.08.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 14.08.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1331 of 2016 (Heard through video conferencing)
1.D.Sumathi
2.D.Kamatchi
3.D.Kumar
4.D.Gopal (Minor)
Minor rep. By Mother and
Natural friend D.Sumathi
all residing at No.27-B,
Kannadasan Nagar,
2 nd Street, Ramapuram,
Chennai – 600 089. .... Appellants
vs.
1.S.Gokulnivas,
No.289, Venkataraman Nagar,
5 th Main Road, Hasthinapuram,
Chennai – 600 044.
1/9
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016
2.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
'Rai' s Towers' 2nd Floor, No.2054, 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. ... Respondents
Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the common judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.5381 of 2011 dated 27.02.2015 on the file of the learned V Judge, Small Causes Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
For Appellants :Mr.K.A.Ravindran for
Mr.A.Shanmugaraj
For R.1 :Set Exparte
For R.2 :Mr.S.Arunkumar
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in the motor accident claim
petition for compensation. On 03/04/2011, Thiru.Duraikannu while
travelling in the motor cycle as pillion rider and driven by his son Venkatesan, near Bhimanthangal check post, on Chennai to Bangalore Highways, a TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.TN 22 BE 6175 coming on the wrong side of the road knocked the motorcycle. Duraikannu and his son Venkatesan died in the hospital. The claimants
2/9
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016
who are the wife and children of Duraikannu filed two claim petitions one for the loss of Duraikannu (MCOP No.5381/2011) and another for the loss of Venkatesan (MCOP No.5396/2011). The Tribunal conducted joint trial and passed common judgement on 27/02/2015. A sum of Rs.7,42,000/- was awarded in MCOP No.5381 of 2011 and a sum of
Rs.16,20,000/- in MCOP No.5396 of 2011 was awarded by the Tribunal.
2.The appeal under consideration is for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP No.5381 of 2011 filed for the loss of Duraikannu.
3.The contention in the appeal is that, the Tribunal erred in fixing
the monthly income of the deceased Duraikannu, as low as Rs.6,500/pm. The evidence of PW-4 and the salary certificate Ex P-6 not considered by the Tribunal. The avocation and income of the deceased is spoken by PW-4. The witnesses have deposed that the deceased was working as Mason under the construction company of PW-4 and earning
3/9
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016
approximately Rs.15,000/- pm.
4. The deceased left behind his wife, widowed daughter, two sons
(aged 21 and 14 years). The elder son Venkatesan aged 28 years also a victim in the said road accident. Therefore, for loss of two adult earning male members of the family, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- each given under the heads loss of consortium/loss of love and affection is abysmally low. Hence, enhancement of compensation from Rs.7,42,000/to Rs.16,89,500/- is sought.
5.The claimants are wife aged 47 years, widowed daughter with two female children and two sons aged 21 and 14 years. The deceased at
the time of accident was aged about 55 years and working as Mason. The legal heir certificate – Ex.P-4 and the evidence of PW-4 proves these
facts. About the income of the deceased, the salary certificate and the evidence of PW-4 indicate that the deceased was paid Rs.500/- per day, as wages. The deceased being a skilled person, fixation of notional wage
4/9
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016
of Rs.6,500/- pm is not reasonable and fair. At the age of 55 years, the reasonable wage of a Mason in a city like Chennai during the year 2011 was not less than Rs.350/- per day. Therefore, fixation of notional income at the rate of Rs.6,500/- is contrary to the evidence of PW-4 and the salary certificate Ex P-6. There is no reason to believe that PW-4 for extraneous reason deposed in favour of the claimants. Hence, the award under this head requires interference.
6.For future prospects, the Tribunal has awarded 15% . In
National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ( 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC)) case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed only 10% as future prospects for the victims between 50 to 60 years. Here again, the Tribunal award under this head requires interference. Likewise, the compensation awarded under the other non conventional heads also requires modification in view of the number of dependants and their ages.
7.This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel
5/9
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016
for the appellants. Hence, the award of the Tribunal passed in MCOP
No.5381 of 2011 is modified as under:-
(i)Loss of dependency:
The monthly income of the deceased Duraikannu is fixed at
Rs.9,000/- based on the evidence of PW-4 and the salary certificate Ex.P-
persons were depending on the deceased, 1/4th of his income is deducted
towards personal expenditure. The deceased was 55 years at the time of
his death. Hence, multiplier 9 is applied. Thus, the loss of dependency in
terms of money is fixed as (Rs.9000 + Rs.900) x ¾ x 12 x 9 =
Rs.8,01,900/-.
(ii)Conventional heads:
Under the Heads Amount
Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/- (for 1 st claimant)
Loss of Love and Affection Rs.75,000/- (each
Rs.25,000/- for claimants 2
to 4)
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.1,55,000/-
The total compensation is Rs.8,01,900/- + Rs.1,55,000 =
6/9
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016
Rs.9,56,900/-
a copy of this judgment. 9.The award amount shall be distributed proportionally with interest among the claimants as under:1st claimant: (Rs.4,50,000 + Rs.50,000) = Rs.5,00,000/2nd claimant: (Rs 1,50,000 + Rs.25,000) = Rs.1,75,000/3rd claimant ( Rs 81,900 + Rs.25,000 ) = Rs.1,06,900/-
4th claimant ( Rs 1,50,000 + Rs.25,000) = Rs.1,75,000/-
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as stated above with
costs.
7/9
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016
14.08.2020
jbm
Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order
To The V Judge, Small Causes Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
8/9
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016
G.JAYACHANDRAN.J.,
jbm
Judgment made in
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2016
14.08.2020
9/9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income and compensation for loss of dependency.
Whether the future prospects percentage and compensation under conventional heads required modification.
Whether the appeal for enhancement of compensation should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and othersReferred¶37
National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC))
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Sumathi and others
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.
G.JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
G.JAYACHANDRAN
Parties & counsel
