Partly allowed

Indhirani v. a.M.v.Jayaraman

Madras HC24 Oct 2024CMA/1132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court sanctioned a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to enhance compensation for a death by rail-vehicle or road accident. The Court fixed the monthly income at Rs.18,000, applied a multiplier of 13, and enhanced the award to Rs.25.49 lakhs based on dependency, consortium, and estate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.25,49,000/- including loss of dependency, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses, with 7.5% interest.

Indhirani Vs a.M.v.Jayaraman — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMA.No.1132 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

C.M.A.No.1132 of 2024

¶7

Indhirani

¶8

Sridevi

¶9

Sridhar

¶10

Latha

¶11

.... Appellants

¶12

vs.

¶13

A.M.V. Jayaraman

¶14

United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office,

¶15

1171, Mutthiah Complex

¶16

Mettur Road, Erode.

¶17

Srinivasan

¶18

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, CBO I Salem, Siva Complex 2nd Floor, 22-C, Sarada College Main Road, Salem

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 01.02.2024 in

¶21

1/9

¶22

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

¶23

CMA.No.1132 of 2024

¶24

Salem.

¶25

M.C.O.P.No.589/2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem.

¶26

For Appellants : Mr.H. Manojin R1, R3 and R4 : No appearance For R2 : Mrs. R. Rathna Thara

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.589/2023 on

¶29

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Vellaiyagounder (husband of claimant 1; father of claimants 2 to 4) in a road accident that occurred on 06.02.2023.

¶30

According to the claimants, on 06.02.2023, Vellaiyagounder

¶31

(since deceased) was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration Number TN-3-AD-3933 on Kollapatty branch road and at about 8.30 a.m., a speeding bus bearing Registration Number TN-86-E5699 hit the two wheeler as a result of which Vellaiyagounder fell down and died on the spot.

¶32

2/9

¶33

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

¶34

CMA.No.1132 of 2024

¶35

According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of

¶36

the driver of the bus bearing Registration Number TN-86-E-5699, was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited, Erode, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them. The respondents 3 and 4 (owner and insurer of the motorcycle) were also added as parties to the claim petition.

¶37

In the Tribunal the owners of the bus and the motorcycle

¶38

remained absent and were set ex parte . The second and fourth respondents resisted the claim petition by filing their respective counters.

¶39

The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration Number TN-86-E-5699, and directed the second respondent, the insurer of the said bus, to pay compensation of Rs.13,15,000/- to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal also held that the liability of the Insurance Company and the owner of the bus is joint and several.

¶40

3/9

¶41

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

¶42

CMA.No.1132 of 2024

¶43

The claim against the respondents 3 and 4 was dismissed by the Tribunal.

¶44

Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

¶45

Tribunal, the claimants have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶46

Heard Mr.H. Manojin, learned counsel appearing for the

¶47

appellants and Ms.R. Rathna Thara, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company.

¶48

Mr.H. Manojin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the deceased was doing catering business earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased only as Rs.10,000/- including future prospects. He therefore prayed for enhancement of compensation.

¶49

Per contra, Ms.R. Rathna Thara, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal is based on the well laid down principles of law

¶50

4/9

¶51

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

¶52

CMA.No.1132 of 2024

¶53

which were in vogue at the time of passing of the order and therefore, the same need not be disturbed in the present appeal.

¶54

Though it is contended that Vellaiyagounder (deceased)

¶55

was doing catering business earning a sum of Rs.50,000/-, no satisfactory evidence was adduced by the claimants. The deceased, in the instant case, was aged 47 years on the date of accident. Considering the year of accident and the age of the deceased, this Court fixes the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/-. As per the decision of the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601 , 25% is added towards future prospects of the deceased. S ince the claimants 2 to 4 are grown up son and daughters of the deceased, 1/3 is deducted towards his personal expenses. The proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 13 as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport

¶56

Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶57

Calculation

¶58

5/9

¶59

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

¶60

CMA.No.1132 of 2024

¶61

Notional Income = Rs.18,000/25% Future Prospects = Rs.22,500/After 1/3 deduction = Rs.15,000/-

¶62

Loss of dependency

¶63

= Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.23,40,000/-

¶64

In addition to that the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,76,000/- (44,000 x 4),

¶65

Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- for 'loss of Consortium', 'loss of Estate' and

¶66

'Funeral Expenses' respectively as per the decision in National Insurance

¶67

Co. vs Pranay sethi and others (cited supra).

¶68

10.1. The enhanced amount under the different heads are

¶69

detailed hereunder:

¶70

*S.No.*	*Head*	*Amount granted* *by this court (Rs.)*
1.	Loss of dependency	23,40,000/-
2.	Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- x 4)	1,76,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	16,500/-
4.	Loss of Estate	16,500/-
	Total	25,49,000/-

¶71

6/9

¶72

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

¶73

CMA.No.1132 of 2024

¶74

This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

¶75

11. In the result,

¶76

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

¶77

ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.25,49,000/-.

¶78

iii. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.

¶79

iv. The second respondent, the United Insurance Company Limited, Erode, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.25,49,000/- (less the amount already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of

¶80

7/9

¶81

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

¶82

CMA.No.1132 of 2024

¶83

M.C.O.P.No.589/2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/uploading of this order. The apportionment made by the Tribunal shall be kept intact.

¶84

v. On such deposit being made, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same after filing proper petition for withdrawal.

¶85

24.10.2024

¶86

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

¶87

¶88

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem.

¶89

United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 1171, Mutthiah Complex Mettur Road, Erode.

¶90

3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶91

8/9

¶92

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

CMA.No.1132 of 2024

R.HEMALATHA, J.

bga

C.M.A.No.1132 of 2024

¶97

24.10.2024

¶98

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

¶99

9/9

Indhirani v. a.M.v.Jayaraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indhirani v. a.M.v.Jayaraman

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

V. Padma Vs The Managing Director

The Managing Director Vs Vijayakumar

Radhakrishnan Vs B.Amudha

K. Rukkumani Vs C. Louie Kathiravan

M/S.Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd, Vs Rajeshwari

P. Mani Vs the Managing Director