Claimants sought enhancement of a motor accident compensation award of Rs.29,50,000/- for a death caused by rash driving in 2015. The High Court held the Tribunal's notional income of Rs.12,500/- with 40% future prospects was justified as no income tax return existed for 2015-2016, and found all heads just. Appeal dismissed; Tribunal decree confirmed.
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.2578 of 2021
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.2578 of 2021
Vs.
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 29.01.2020 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.777 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.M.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.S.Dakshinamoorth (For R2) Notice Dispensed with (For R1)
1/6
C.M.A.No.2578 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the
award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes,
Chennai in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.777 of 2016 , dated 29.01.2020.
2. On 28.02.2015 at about 08.15.p.m., the deceased was standing
on the road near Iyyappankovil mandapam at Thannampatty. At that time, the 1 st respondent had driven his vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 60 Y 3333 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and thereby the deceased lost his life. The appellants who are the claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to prove the negligence as against the 1 st respondent driver, the 1 st appellant was examined as PW1 and the eye witness was examined as PW2 and marked exhibits P1 to P18. On behalf of the respondents, they examined RW1 and marked exhibits R1 and R2. After adjudication, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.29,50,000/- as compensation to be payable by the second respondent in favour of the claimants. Seeking enhancement of the said award, the present appeal has been filed.
C.M.A.No.2578 of 2021
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that, the appellants marked Ex.P6, which is the Income Tax Returns of the deceased and on a perusal of the same, it reveals that, for the financial year 2012-2013, the annual income of the deceased is Rs.2,50,000/- and for the financial year 2013, the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.2,50,000/-. Though, the deceased obtained more than Rs.2,50,000/- during the time of accident, however, without considering the same, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.12,500/- which is very meager. Accordingly, he prayed for passing appropriate orders.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent would submit that, though the appellant filed the income tax assessment for the financial year 2012-2013, 2013-2014, however, no income tax assessment was filed for the year 2015-2016, since the accident was happened in the year 2015 and in the absence of the income tax receipt for the financial year 2015-2016, the Claims Tribunal had rightly fixed the notional income of Rs.12,500/- and adding 40% future prospects after deducting 1/4 th amount and applying multiplier 16, had passed an 3/6
C.M.A.No.2578 of 2021
award of Rs.25,20,000/- which is just and reasonable and further, the total claimants are only five, however the Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for love and affection and for consortium of Rs.80,000/and for son's consortium a sum of Rs.80,000/- and for relationship consortium, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and thereby totally awarded Rs.4,00,000/- for love and affection, which is highly excessive. Hence, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. Admittedly, no income tax assessment was filed for the year 2015-2016, since the accident had happened in the year 2015 and in the absence of the income tax receipt for the financial year 2015-2016, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the notional income of Rs.12,500/- and adding 40% future prospects after deducting 1/4 th amount and applying multiplier 16, had passed an award of Rs.25,20,000/- which is just and reasonable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to i nterfere with the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Further , this Court finds that the compensation awarded under the other heads are just and reasonable and
the same does not require any interference. Hence, the prayer sought for
4/6
C.M.A.No.2578 of 2021
by the appellant cannot be granted.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2020 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.777 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes, Chennai is hereby confirmed. No costs.
28.11.2024
Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No sma
To
1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes, Chennai 2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.2578 of 2021
M.DHANDAPANI, J.,
sma
C.M.A.No.2578 of 2021
28.11.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's notional income fixation and compensation award required enhancement despite absence of income tax returns for the accident year.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nithya
Sri Samantha (Minor)
Bhavatharani (Minor)
Sakthivel
Saroja
G.Venkat Kumar
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
