Partly allowed

Tamil Nadu State Transport v. v.Selvi

Madras HC12 Aug 2020CMA/1434/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the compensation award in a motor accident claim by reducing the notional income to Rs.6,000 per month and applying a 40% future prospects percentage, in accordance with the Pranay Sethi judgment, resulting in a partly allowed appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed; the Tribunal is directed to accept the modified award amount of Rs. 9,57,200.

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs v.Selvi — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1434 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.11005 of 2016 (Heard through video conferencing)

¶6

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. By its Director, No.31/137, Salamedu, Valudhareddy Post, Villupuram – 605 602. ...Appellant/Respondent Vs V.Selvi W/o Late Vadivel, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Residing at No.5/218, Mela Street, Paravakottai, Mannarkudi, Now residing at No.48/1, Poonga Nagar, Tiruvallur. ... Respondent/Petitioner Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (Special District Court, Tiruvallur) in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2015 dated 28.04.2015. For Appellant : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, Standing Counsel For Respondent : No Appearance JUDGMENT

¶7

This appeal is filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , Chennai (Special District Court, Tiruvallur) in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2015 dated 28.04.2015, awarding Rs.10,02,000/- for the claimant.

¶8

2.The mother of V.Ashok Kumar/deceased motor accident victim, filed the claim petition claiming that her son V.Ashok

¶9

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

¶10

Kumar on 21.04.2011 at about 22.30 hours while walking from East to West at Vettuvankani, was hit by the Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN 21 N 1459 and he died on his way to hospital. Alleging that due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the offending Bus, the accident occurred and hence, the Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation. The said claim was contested by the Transport Corporation denying the allegation of rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver. The age, income, occupation of the deceased Ashok Kumar was also put to challenge.

¶11

3.The Tribunal taking note of the criminal case registered against the Driver of the Transport Corporation Bus, and the evidences relied by the claimant has fixed the negligence on the Transport Corporation Bus Driver. For loss of dependancy, the age of the deceased was fixed as 23 years and applying the multiplier 18, the Tribunal relying upon Ex.P.7 salary certificiate of the deceased had fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. For loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- under each heads.

¶12

4.This appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation alleging that the quantum fixed under the head of loss of dependancy is excessive and exorbitant and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal @ Rs.9,000/- is on the higher side. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased notionally @ Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.9,000/- per month. The evidence of P.W.3 and the salary certificiate of the deceased – Ex.P.7 are not the reliable evidence for fixation of salary of the deceased person. Further, the learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal has awarded 50% additional income under the head of future prospects relying upon the judgment in Santhosh Devi vs. National Insurance (AIR 2012 SC 2185) but, the said percentage has been interfered and modifed by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC)) wherein, the future prospects of the preson who is below the age of 40 shall be only 40%.

¶13

5.This Court is bound to apply the dictum laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited supra). Accordingly, the notional income of the deceased is fixed @ Rs.6,000/- per month and the future prospects is fixed at 40% and the award passed by the Tribunal is modifed as under:-

¶14

Loss of dependancy : Rs.6000/- + Rs.2400/- (40% in Rs.6,000/-) x 12x18 = Rs.9,07,200/-

¶15

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

¶16

Loss of Love and Affection : Rs.30,000/Loss of Estate : Rs.10,000/Funeral Expenses : Rs.10,000/Total Rs.9,57,200/-

¶17

6.The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the above modified award amount of Rs.9,57,200/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdarw the same by filing appropriate petition before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jbm
To
1.The Special District Judge,
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special District Court, Tiruvallur).
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court,
Madras.
+1cc to Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, Advocate, S.R.No. 26406

¶19

C.M.A.No.1434 of 2016 BR(CO) GN(01/09/2020)

¶20

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

Tamil Nadu State Transport v. v.Selvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamil Nadu State Transport v. v.Selvi

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

Shakila Bee Vs Tamil Nadu State Fire Service, Chennai

Siva Kumar Vs M.Suresh

M.Ramachandran Vs Venkatasubburayalu

Krishnamoorthy Vs Chengalvarayan

K.Ranganathan Vs Poongavanam Ammal

Rani Vs the Managing Director