Allowed

S.Lakshmi, W/O Late Suresh, v. R.R.Ramesh

Madras HC20 Apr 2021CMA/1010/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the quantum of compensation in a motor accident claim. The Court enhanced the loss of dependency and loss of consortium awarded by the Tribunal after recalculating income and applying a multiplier. The total award was increased to Rs.15.60 Lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs.15,60,000; Insurance Company directed to deposit the amount with interest.

S.Lakshmi, W/O Late Suresh, Vs R.R.Ramesh — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 20.04.2021

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

C.M.A.No. 1010 of 2018

¶7

S.Lakshmi

¶8

Minor Sridhar

¶9

Minor Nikitha [Minor Petitioners 2 & 3 are represented by their mother/guardian 1st appellant] ...Appellants

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.R.R.Ramesh

¶12

2.The National Insurance Company Limited,

¶13

Divisional Office,

¶14

No.19, Officers Line, Opposite to Lakshmi Theatre, Vellore.

¶15

[No relief sought against the 1st respondent Hence, notice may be dispensed with] ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer:

¶17

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor

¶18

Vehicles Act, enhance the award passed in judgment and decree dated 11.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.328 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident

¶19

Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore.

¶20

2 For Appellant : Mr.M.Sivakumar For R1 : Given up For R2 : Mr.D.Bhaskaran -----

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the quantum of

¶23

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶24

2. The appellants are the claimants before the Tribunal.

¶25

3. The claimants mainly challenged the quantum of compensation

¶26

awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the fixation of notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and failure of the Tribunal to award any amount towards loss of love and affection for two minor children and Transport Charges.

¶27

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the second

¶28

respondent/Insurance Company fairly suggested that the accident occurred on 08.10.2014. The fixation of Rs.6,000/- as monthly income by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The appellants themselves claimed in the claim statement that the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of

¶29

¶30

accident. Therefore, he suggested a sum of Rs.10,000/- may be fixed as notional income. Further, he fairly submitted that no amount was awarded towards the future prospects. In the present case, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 45 years. Therefore, 25% future prospects may be added. Further he submitted that the loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- each to both the

¶31

minor children may be awarded. He submitted that Rs.10,000/- may be added towards the Transport Charges.

¶32

5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly

¶33

accepted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. Therefore, the loss of income of the deceased is re-

¶34

determined by this Court as follows:-

¶35

= Rs.10,000 + Rs.2,500 (future prospects)

¶36

= Rs.12,500 x 1/3 (deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.4,166/= Rs.12,500 - Rs.4,166 = Rs.8,333/-p.m.

¶37

In the present case, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 45 years

¶38

and multiplier applicable is "14". Therefore, the loss of income is as follows:-

¶39

= Rs.8,333 x 12 x 14

¶40

= Rs.13,99,944 rounded of Rs.14,00,000/-

¶41

¶42

6. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards consortium to the

¶43

wife of the deceased and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estates and the same are stands confirmed. No amount was awarded towards the loss of love and affection and parental consortium to the two minor children. Therefore, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded. No amount was awarded by the Tribunal towards transport charges. Thus a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards Transport expenses. Accordingly a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal stands re-determined as

¶44

follows:-

¶45

S.No	Description	Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)	Amount awarded by this Court (Rs)
1.	Loss of Dependency	8,40,000	14,00,000
2.	Loss of Consortium (Wife & Children)	40,000	1,20,000
3.	Funeral Expenses	15,000	15,000
4.	Loss of Estate	15,000	15,000
5.	Transportation Charges	--	10.000
	Total	9,10,000	15,60,000

¶46

7. The award passed by the Tribunal at a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- is increased to Rs.15,60,000/-. The first claimant, the wife of the deceased is entitled to get Rs.9,60,000/-. The second claimant viz., Minor Sridhar is entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/- and the third claimant viz., Minor Nikitha is entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶47

8. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount

¶48

¶49

along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of

¶50

payment after deducting, amount if any deposited before the Court below

¶51

within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

9. Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to pay the entire compensation awarded in this appeal with interest within a period of three weeks from the date of deposit of the amount by the Insurance Company by way of RTGS to the bank account of the eligible claimant or from the date of filing an application for withdrawal of the award amount, whichever is later. The amount awarded to the two minor children shall be deposited in a nationalized bank till the minor claimants attain majority. The first appellant, mother is

¶53

entitled to get the interest every six months.

¶54

10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order

¶55

as to costs.

¶56

20.04.2021

¶57

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No msm

¶58

¶59

¶60

The National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, No.19, Officers Line, Opposite to Lakshmi Theatre, Vellore.

¶61

The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranipet, Vellore.

¶62

The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Chennai-104.

¶63

¶64

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

¶65

msm

¶66

C.M.A.No. 1010 of 2018
20.04.2021

S.Lakshmi, W/O Late Suresh, v. R.R.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Lakshmi, W/O Late Suresh, v. R.R.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Annakkili Vs 1.DAKSHINAMURTHY

The Special Tahsildar Vs Pushpavathi Bai

The Special Tahsildar Vs Parvathibai

Kusum Chandak Alias Vs the Oriental Ins., Co., Ltd., Chennai

Cholamandalam Ms General Vs Venkatesan

United India Insurance Co. Vs Angammal