Appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation for death of the claimant's son. The court confirmed the Tribunal's 50% personal expense deduction per Sarla Verma, income, multiplier of 17, and other heads, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.No.1596 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on 09.02.2024 25.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A.No.1596 of 2021
Seethammal (44 years) W/o.Murugan @ Mariappan Kottavur Village Kammampalli Post Krishnagiri Taluk and District ... Appellant Vs.
1.G.Gunasekaran S/o.Govindasamy No.21/167M, Pudhur 2 Chikkamarandahalli Palacode Taluk Dharmapuri District 636 808 2.The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Micro Office, No.81-C, First Floor KRC Complex, Chennai Salai Krishnagiri. ... Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.11.2018 made in MCOP.No.379 of 2017 on the
1/8
C.M.A.No.1596 of 2021
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions
Court, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj For Respondents : Mr.J.Chandran (for R2)
J U D G M E N T
The Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.11.2018 made in MCOP.No.379 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The claim Petitioner is the Appellant herein and she filed this Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MCOP.No.379 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3.The legal representatives of the deceased Vimal Kumar filed MCOP.No.379 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, seeking compensation and
2/8
C.M.A.No.1596 of 2021
filed this Appeal on the point of quantum.
4.The factum of the accident, manner of the accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1 st Respondent's vehicle, insured with the 2nd Respondent are not under challenge in this Appeal. Accordingly, the finding rendered by the trial Court that the accident taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1 st Respondent's vehicle, insured with the 2 nd Respondent are hereby confirmed.
5.During the trial, on the side of the claim Petitioners, PW1 & PW2 were examined & Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked and on the side of the Respondents, RW1 & RW2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claim Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company.
7.Learned counsel for the claim Petitioner would contend that the claim
Petitioner is a widowed mother of the deceased viz., Vimal Kumar, who died in
C.M.A.No.1596 of 2021
the accident occurred on 24.01.2015. The learned counsel for the claim Petitioner would contend that the Tribunal has deducted ½ of the share towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3 rd as the deceased died as a bachelor.
8.Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that in respect of deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others .Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in
2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), shall be followed.
9.In paragraph No.15 of the Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut
C.M.A.No.1596 of 2021
drastically.
even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”
Hence, when the deceased has a widowed mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters or brothers, then only his personal and living expenses shall be taken as 1/3 rd , but in the present case, there is no younger brother or sister, who are non-earning family members and the only family member is the widowed mother. Therefore, in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra, the Tribunal's ½ deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is just fair and proper.
10.The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.24,300/-, deducted ½ towards personal expenses of the deceased, added
5/8
C.M.A.No.1596 of 2021
50% towards future prospects, which is just and proper and hence, this Court confirms the same. The Tribunal has adopted right multiplier of '17'. The same is also hereby confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses. The same is also hereby confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium, the same is also hereby confirmed. In total, the Tribunal has awarded the following:
| S.No. | Head | Amount (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pecuniary loss [24300 + (50% of 24300)] x 12 x 17 x 1/2 |
3717900 |
| 2 | Loss of filial consortium | 80000 |
| 3 | Funeral expenses | 15000 |
| 4 | Loss of Estate | 15000 |
| Total Compensation | 3827900 |
In total, the claim Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.38,27,900/- (Rupees
thirty eight lakh twenty seven thousand and nine hundred only) and the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% per annum is also confirmed.
6/8
C.M.A.No.1596 of 2021
11.Accordingly, the Judgment and Decree dated 02.11.2018 made in MCOP.No.379 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri is hereby confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
25.03.2024
Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order sai
To The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Additional District and Sessions Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Krishnagiri.
C.M.A.No.1596 of 2021
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,
sai
Pre-delivery Judgment made in C.M.A.No.1596 of 2021
Dated: 25.03.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's 50% deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased bachelor, instead of one-third, was correct in computing compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anotherRelied on¶9
2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Seethammal
G.Gunasekaran
The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Parties & counsel
