Allowed

P.C.Vayu Nandini v. G.Balagurunathan

Madras HC15 Nov 2022CMA/3728/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a fatal accident case. The tribunal erred in deducting two-thirds for personal expenses; the court corrected this error, recalculated loss of income, and granted additional heads for clothing and funeral expenses, raising the total award.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs. 4,30,000/- to Rs. 8,52,500/- directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company with interest.

P.C.Vayu Nandini Vs G.Balagurunathan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.A.No.3728 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

C.M.A.No.3728 of 2012

¶7

1.P.C.Vayu Nandini

¶8

2.P.C.Geetha Nandagopal 3.P.C.Vaishnavi (Minor) ... Appellant (Represented by her mother and natural guardian P.C.Geetha Nandagopal)

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.G.Balagurunathan

¶11

2.M/s.A.N.Srinivasa Nadar & Sons, 13-A, Kuppamani Thope, Red Hills, Chennai- 600 052.

¶12

3.M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., G.T.Branch, No.94, Govindappa Naicken Street, Chennai-600 001. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the

¶14

Motor Vehicles Act, against the fair order and decreetal order dated 09.10.2003 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1614 of 1998 on the file of the Motor

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.M.A.No.3728 of 2012

¶18

Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶19

For Appellants : Mr.A.C.Kumaragurubaran For Respondents : Mr.M.J.Vijaya Raaghavan [R3] R1 – Died R2 – Served – No Appearance

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The claimants have filed the above appeal seeking enhancement of

¶22

the award passed by the Tribunal below.

¶23

Considering the fact that the appeal is only challenging the quantum, I am not traversing through the intricate details of the case. Suffice it to state that the petitioners before the claims Tribunal had filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of one Nandagopal, the father of the petitioners 1 and 2 and husband of the 3^rd petitioner and father of the 4^th petitioner, minor (the 1^st petitioner died pending the claim petition).

¶24

The Tribunal on going through the records had awarded a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- as compensation. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal has deducted 2/3^rd towards personal expenses and had failed to award any amount under the head of pain and suffering and

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

C.M.A.No.3728 of 2012

¶28

damage to clothing and loss of income.

¶29

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would admit that as against the deduction of 1/3^rd , the Tribunal had deducted 2/3^rd which is erroneous. He would however contend that the amounts granted under the other heads are reasonable and have to be confirmed.

¶30

Admittedly, the Tribunal had taken the notional income at Rs.6,000/-. Instead of deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses, the Tribunal had deducted 2/3^rd . The amount under the head of loss of income would stand increased by deducting only 1/3^rd from out of the monthly income of the deceased. If 1/3^rd is deducted from Rs.6,000/-, the monthly income would be a sum of Rs.4,000/-. The reworked compensation would be as follows:Rs.4,000/- X 12 X 17 = Rs.8,16,000/-. The petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- under the head of damage to clothes and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Funeral Expenses. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/granted towards loss of income is increased to Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reworked as below:

¶31

3/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

C.M.A.No.3728 of 2012

¶34

S.No.

¶35

*S.No.*	*Description*	*Amount* *awarded by* *Tribunal*	*Amount* *awarded by* *this Court*	*Award* *confirmed* or *enhanced* *or granted* *or reduced*
1	Loss of Income	Rs.4,08,000/-	Rs.8,16,000/-	Enhanced
2	Damage to Clothes	NIL	Rs. 1,500/-	Granted
3	Funeral Expenses	NIL	Rs. 5,000/-	Granted
4	Love & Affection	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 20,000/-	Enhanced
5	Consortium	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-	Confirmed
6	Damage to Scooter	Rs. 2,000/-	NIL	Rejected
	TOTAL	Rs.4,30,000/-	Rs.8,52,500/-

¶36

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the

¶37

compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby Enhanced to a sum of Rs.8,52,500/- . Therefore, the 3^rd respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.8,52,500/- to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1614 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. The said

¶38

4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

C.M.A.No.3728 of 2012

¶41

amount shall be apportioned amongst the claimants as per the Award of the Tribunal. On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with accrued proportionate interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The share of the minor shall be deposited in any one of the nationalized bank till she attain majority and the 2^nd appellant, P.C.Geetha Nandagopal shall be permitted to withdraw quarterly interest from the said amount. The claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall not disburse the enhanced amount till such time as the certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee has been produced by the claimants. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.

¶42

15.11.2022

¶43

Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order ssn

¶44

5/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

C.M.A.No.3728 of 2012

P.T.ASHA, J.,

ssn

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court,

¶51

Chennai.

¶52

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶53

C.M.A.No.3728 of 2012

¶54

15.11.2022

¶55

6/6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.C.Vayu Nandini v. G.Balagurunathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.C.Vayu Nandini v. G.Balagurunathan

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

Sundaramoorthy Vs Velmurugan

Kannagi Vs P.Paramasivam

T.v.Kannan Vs J.Kumaresan

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs M.Gowri

Margret Jeevaraj Vs J.Samuvel Narson (Died)

Syed Moinuddin Vs Syed Sahib Basha