Partly allowed

S.Vijaya Baskar, v. R.Ravi, S/O.Ramaya

Madras HC12 Apr 2023CMA(MD)/1042/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident claim for a deceased housewife. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court corrected the deduction method for dependency, raised future prospects awards, and granted additional amounts for funeral and attender expenses, increasing the total from 6.75 lakhs to 11.79 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs.6,75,200/- to Rs.11,79,600/- with interest, payable by the insurance company within eight weeks.

S.Vijaya Baskar, Vs R.Ravi, S/O.Ramaya — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CMA(MD).No.1042 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2017

¶7

S.Vijaya Baskar

¶8

Minor V.Vijayaarivarsan ....Appellants/Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

R.Ravi

¶11

M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Zenith House, Keshavrao Khade Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 034. ... Respondents/ Respondents

¶12

(1^st respondent was set ex-parte before Tribunal hence notice to respondent be dispensed with)

¶13

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 30.08.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Pudukkottai.

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

CMA(MD).No.1042 of 2017

¶17

For Appellants : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For Respondents : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi – for R2 : R1- Ex-parte

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking

¶20

enhancement of the compensation of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Pudukkottai in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2010.

¶21

2. Admittedly, the deceased was a house wife. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the notional monthly income at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and applying the multiplier of “18”, arrived at Rs.5,40,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Forty Thousand only) for loss of dependency.

¶22

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, relying upon

¶23

the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2021 (1) TANMAC 785 (Rajendra Singh and others Vs. National Insurance

¶24

Company Ltd., and others), and contended that 40% of future prospectus should be added even in the case death of the house wife.

¶25

2/8

¶26

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

¶27

CMA(MD).No.1042 of 2017

¶28

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had further

¶29

contended that for loss of consortium to the husband only a sum of -

¶30

Rs.25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) has been awarded. He further contended that only a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) has been awarded towards funeral expenses. He further contended that due to the accident, the deceased was admitted as an inpatient for six days and no attender charges have been awarded. Hence, he prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

¶31

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had contended that the loss of dependency as well as under the other heads, the Tribunal has been liberal and has awarded excess amount than that has been prayed for. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the said award and the enhancement of compensation.

¶32

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶33

3/8

¶34

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

¶35

CMA(MD).No.1042 of 2017

¶36

7. As rightly contended that the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2021 (1) TANMAC 785 (Rajendra Singh and others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., and others), in paragraph No.11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the notional income of house wife at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month, has held that the claimants would be entitled for future prospectus at the rate of 40%. Considering the above said facts, a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) has been added to the notional monthly income of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) of the house wife and the monthly income can be arrived at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only). The deceased being a house wife, who had passed away, leaving behind her husband and minor son, the Tribunal has erroneously deducted 50% of the amount towards her personal expenses instead of 1/3 rd deduction. After 1/3 rd deduction the monthly income would be at Rs.4,650/-(Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only). Therefore, the loss of dependency would be calculated as (4,650x 12 x 18 = 10,04,400/-) Therefore, this Court enhances the loss of dependency

¶37

4/8

¶38

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

¶39

CMA(MD).No.1042 of 2017

¶40

from Rs.5,40,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Thousand only) to Rs.10,04,400/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Four Thousand and Four Hundred only).

¶41

8. The loss of consortium to the first claimant/ husband has been fixed at a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) by the Tribunal. However, this Court is inclined to enhance the said amount to a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only). A sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) has been awarded towards funeral expenses and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the funeral expenses is enhanced to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). Admittedly the deceased was an inpatient from 19.10.2009 to 25.10.2009. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) has to be awarded towards attender charges.

¶42

9. In view of the above said facts, the compensation amount under various heads are modified as follows:

¶43

5/8

¶44

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

¶45

CMA(MD).No.1042 of 2017

¶46

Loss of Dependency	: Rs.1	0,04,400/-
Transport Charges	: Rs.	10,000/-
Medical Expenses	: Rs.	40,200/-
Pain and Sufferings	: Rs.	10,000/-
Loss of Consortium to the 1 st Claimant	: Rs.	40,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection to the 2 nd Claimant	: Rs.	40,000/-
Funeral Expenses	: Rs.	25,000/-
Attender Charges	: Rs.	10,000/-
Total	: Rs.1	1,79,600/ -

¶47

10. Therefore, the compensation has been enhanced from Rs.6,75,200/- to Rs.11,79,600/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Six Hundred only) and the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The 1 st claimant/husband shall be entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and the balance amount shall be paid to the 2 nd claimant/son as compensation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

6/8

¶49

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

¶50

CMA(MD).No.1042 of 2017

¶51

11. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the

¶52

extent as sated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

12.04.2023

¶54

Index : Yes/No 1/2 Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No ebsi

¶55

¶56

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Pudukkottai.

¶57

M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Zenith House, Keshavrao Khade Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 034.

¶58

3.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶59

7/8

¶60

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

¶61

CMA(MD).No.1042 of 2017

¶62

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶63

ebsi

¶64

Judgement made in C.M.A(MD)No.1042 of 2017

¶65

12.04.2023 (1/2)

¶66

8/8

¶67

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

S.Vijaya Baskar, v. R.Ravi, S/O.Ramaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vijaya Baskar, v. R.Ravi, S/O.Ramaya

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

Rajmohan(died) Vs Selvaraj(Died)

E.S.I. Corporation, Vs M/S. New Thilaka Bakery

The Divisional Manager Vs Mahalakshmi

The National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs v.Murugan

The Branch Manager Vs Govindan(Died)

S.Vijaya Baskar, Vs R.Ravi, S/O.Ramaya