Partly allowed

B.Geetha v. S.Devi

Madras HC22 Dec 2023CMA/105/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special concern appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court of Madras enhanced the compensation for the death of Balasubramaniam. The Court reworked the loss of dependency head by adjusting the victim's age and notional income, increasing the total award from Rs.14.74 lakhs to Rs.19.24 lakhs and directing the insurer to pay the difference.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.14,74,000 to Rs.19,24,000; insurer directed to deposit the difference with interest at 7.5% per annum.

B.Geetha Vs S.Devi — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.No.105 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.12.2023

¶4

CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

C.M.A.No.105 of 2023

¶6

1.B.Geetha

¶7

2.B.Sangeetha 3.Minor B.Deepa (12 years) [Minor 3rd appellant is represented by her mother and next friend, guardian 1st appellant herein]

¶8

..... Appellants / Petitioners

¶9

¶10

1.S.Devi

¶11

2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Third Party Hub, Silinghi Building No.134, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006. ..... Respondents / Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to enhance the compensation amount made in judgment and decree dated 13.06.2022 made in M.C.O.P.No.1076 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes), Chennai, by allowing this appeal.

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/7

¶14

C.M.A.No.105 of 2023

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.SP.Yuaraj

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam for R2 R1 - Dispensed with

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1076 of 2018 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes), Chennai, are the appellants herein. They have filed this appeal as they feel aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶19

On 10.04.2017, a certain Balasubramaniam was fatally knocked down by

¶20

an auto rickshaw belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, when the victim was crossing the road. The victim was 45 years old at that relevant time and was stated to be a newspaper distributor. Seeking compensation, his dependants approached the Tribunal with a claim of Rs.30.0 lakhs, however, the Tribunal had passed an award for Rs.14,74,000/-.

¶21

2.2 While awarding compensation, the Tribunal had reckoned the age of the

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7

¶23

C.M.A.No.105 of 2023

¶24

victim as 47 years, fixed his notional monthly income as Rs.10,000/-, and applied 13 as a multiplier, to which it added 25% towards future prospects for increase in income and reduced the sum arrived to 1/3, and arrived at Rs.13,00,000/- as the nett value of compensation on loss of dependency. After providing for other conventional heads of compensation, it arrived at Rs.14,674,000/-. The break-up is as below :

¶25

*Sl.No.*	*Heads of Compensation*	*Award of* *Tribunal (Rs.)*
1	Loss of dependency	13,00,000..00
2	Loss of estate	16,500.00
3	Funeral expenses	16,500.00
4	Loss of consortium	1,32,000.00
5	Transportation expenses	5,500.00
6	Attender charges	3,500.00
	Total :	14,74,000.00

¶26

This is now under challenge.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal had ignored Ext.P2, postmortem certificate where the age of the victim was mentioned as 45. This apart, in an accident that had taken place in 2017, it had fixed the notional monthly income rather unrealistically.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7

¶29

C.M.A.No.105 of 2023

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company however defended the award and the approach of the Tribunal.

¶31

Heard both sides. On a careful consideration of the submissions made on rival sides, this Court considers that there is no reason why the Tribunal had ignored Ext.P2 for reckoning the age of the victim. This apart, even going by the cost of living in 2017, it would be reasonable to fix Rs.12,500/- as notional monthly income. Accordingly, this Court fixes the monthly income of the victim at Rs.12,500/-, to which it adds another 25% towards future prospects for increase in income, and applies 14 as multiplier, and reduce the sum arrived by 1/3rd and determines the compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency at Rs.17,50,000/-. This Court does not purport to interfere with the compensation paid on other heads, since they are found

¶32

to be just and reasonable. The award amount is accordingly re-worked and

¶33

provided below :

¶34

*Sl.No.*	*Heads of Compensation*	*Revised Award* *(Rs.)*
1	Loss of dependency	17,50,000.00
2	Loss of estate	16,500.00
3	Funeral expenses	16,500.00
4	Loss of consortium	1,32,000.00
5	Transportation expenses	5,500.00

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7

¶36

C.M.A.No.105 of 2023

¶37

*Sl.No.*	*Heads of Compensation*	*Revised Award* *(Rs.)*
6	Attender charges	3,500.00
	Total :	19,24,000.00

¶38

6.1 In conclusion, the appeal is partially allowed and this Court enhances the compensation from Rs.14,74,000/- to Rs.19,24,000/-. This Court is informed that the second respondent-insurance company has already deposited the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the insurance company is now required to deposit the differential sum with interest at 7.5% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The enhanced portion of the compensation is directed to be shared in the same ratio which the Tribunal has apportioned the compensation as between the claimants. The appellants are required to pay the additional court fee on the enhanced amount, if it is required to be so paid.

¶39

6.2 As directed by the Tribunal, the second respondent is now required to

¶40

pay the compensation, and recover the same from the first respondent, as there are certain violation of policy conditions. This clause in the award of the Tribunal is confirmed, and the second respondent is now entitled to recover the sum it had paid the claimants from the first respondent. No costs.

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7

C.M.A.No.105 of 2023

22.12.2023

Index : Yes / No ds

To:

The III Judge Court of Small Causes Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chennai.

¶47

2.The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7

C.M.A.No.105 of 2023

N.SESHASAYEE.J.,

C.M.A.No.105 of 2023

22.12.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7

B.Geetha v. S.Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Geetha v. S.Devi

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

G.Sudhaa Vs The National Medical Commission

S.Velayudham Vs the Managing Director

Ambedkar Vs Balasubramanian

Rukku Vs Yogesh

Thenmozhi N Vs Mr.Kannan

M/s.Chinnasamy Agencies Vs Amala Jesudas