Partly allowed

Ameena Bee v. K. Kamalraj

Madras HC27 Mar 2024CMA/368/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in a motor vehicle death case. It enhanced loss of dependency by fixing notional income at Rs.15,000, reduced loss of consortium, and awarded loss of love and affection, increasing total compensation from Rs.15.4 lakh to Rs.20.6 lakh.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased to Rs.20,60,000; 2nd Respondent directed to deposit amount with interest and costs; shares allocated to 1st and 2nd Appellants with specific transfer instructions.

Ameena Bee Vs K. Kamalraj — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.No.368 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.03.2024

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

C.M.A.No.368 of 2024

¶7

1.Ameena Bee

¶8

2.Minor Mohamed Najeem [** Minor rep by mother/1^st appellant]

¶9

...Appellant

¶10

¶11

1.K.Kamalraj 2.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., RR Towers, II Floor, No.94/95, TVK Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 32.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer:

¶14

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award dated 15.02.2023 passed in MCOP.No.1615 of 2018 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court II, Chennai and enhance the award amount.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.R.Dinesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.N.Somasundar for R2

¶16

1/8

¶17

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

¶18

C.M.A.No.368 of 2024

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging the judgment

¶21

and decree dated 15.02.2023 passed in MCOP.No.1615 of 2018.

¶22

The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that on 26.01.2018, when the deceased Ismail was riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN58-AP-8260 at Santhi Nikethan Colony, a car bearing Registration No.TN-02AT-5956 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, due to which he was died. Considering all the aspects, the Tribunal had awarded the

¶23

compensation in the following manner:

¶24

*S.No*	*Heads*		*Compensation (Rs.)*
1	Loss of Dependency		14,30,000
2	Loss of Consortium		80,000
3	Loss of Estate		15,000
4	Funeral Expenses		15,000
		Total	15,40,000

¶25

3. Further, he would submit that the accident was occurred in the year

¶26

2018 and for a long period of time till the accident, the deceased, who was aged

¶27

about 49 years, was working as a meat cutter and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/-

¶28

per month. However, without considering the same, the Tribunal had fixed the

¶29

2/8

¶30

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

¶31

C.M.A.No.368 of 2024

¶32

notional income of the deceased as a sum of Rs.11,000/- which is on the lower

¶33

side. Hence, he requests this Court to enhance the same.

¶34

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that considering the year of accident and age and avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation and hence, he requests this Court to confirm the same.

¶35

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and also perused the documents available on records.

¶36

In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of accident and fastening of liability. The only issue involved in this appeal is with regard to the fixation of notional income of the deceased. The accident was occurred in the year 2018 and the deceased was working as a meat cutter for a long period of time. According to claimants, he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, however, no proof was produced by the claimants in this regard. Further, it was submitted by the respondents that considering the age

¶37

3/8

¶38

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

¶39

C.M.A.No.368 of 2024

¶40

factor, the Tribunal had reduced the notional income of the deceased while awarding compensation. However, this Court is of the view that the deceased was aged about 49 years and at this age, he must have a lot of experience in his avocation, which would increase his income. The said principle would apply up to the age of retirement, i.e., up to 60 years. However, in a case where the deceased person was aged more than 60 years, the notional income may be reduced for age factor. In such view of the matter, since the deceased was aged about 49 years, the Tribunal is not supposed to have reduced the notional income of the deceased for the age factor.

¶41

Therefore, by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq and others vs. Divisional Manager, United India reported in MANU/SC/0033/2014 and by applying the cost inflation and also taking into consideration of the year of accident and age, avocation and experience of the deceased in that field, this Court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.15,000/- as notional income of the deceased. Hence, by adding 25% towards future prospects, by applying 13 as multiplier and by deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of income would be calculated as follows:

¶42

4/8

¶43

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

¶44

C.M.A.No.368 of 2024

¶45

Rs.15,000/- (notional income) + Rs.3,750/- (25% future prospects)

¶46

12 (months) * 13 (multiplier) * (2/3) (deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.19,50,000/-

¶47

8. Further, it appears that a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of

¶48

consortium for the 1 st appellant, hence, the same is reduced to a sum of Rs.40,000/-. That apart, it appears that no amount was awarded towards loss of

¶49

Love and Affection for the 2 nd appellant. Hence, this Court is inclined to award

¶50

a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of Love and Affection for the 2 nd appellant.

¶51

9. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as

¶52

follows:

¶53

*S.No* .	*Heads*	*Compensation* *awarded by* *Tribunal (Rs.)*	*Compensation* *awarded by this* *Court (Rs.)*
1	Loss of Dependency	14,30,000	19,50,000
2	Loss of Consortium	80,000	40,000
3	Loss of Love and Affection	Nil	40,000
4	Loss of Estate	15,000	15,000
5	Funeral Expenses	15,000	15,000
	Total	15,40,000	20,60,000

¶54

5/8

¶55

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

¶56

C.M.A.No.368 of 2024

¶57

Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is modified as a sum of Rs.20,60,000/-. Accordingly, the award amount stands increased from a sum of Rs.15,40,000/- to Rs.20,60,000/-. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal stands confirmed. It is also made clear that the compensation will be awarded to the claimants in the following proportions:

¶58

i) Minor child of the deceased/2^nd appellant – Rs.5,00,000/ii) Wife of the deceased/1^st appellant – Rs.15,60,000/-

¶59

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and

¶60

the 2^nd respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,60,000/- along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited and also less the interest for the waiver period, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of MCOP.No.1615 of 2018 on the file of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court II, Chennai Upon such deposit, the share of the minor 2^nd appellant is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank till he attains majority and the 1^st appellant being the mother of the minor is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the minor. Further, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the share of the 1^st appellant to her bank account, as per

¶61

6/8

¶62

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

¶63

C.M.A.No.368 of 2024

¶64

the proportion determined by this Court, by way of RTGS, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the Bank details from the 1^st appellant.

¶65

No costs.

¶66

27.03.2024

¶67

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order nsa

¶68

7/8

¶69

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

¶70

C.M.A.No.368 of 2024

¶71

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.

¶72

nsa

¶73

C.M.A.No.368 of 2024

¶74

27.03.2024

¶75

8/8

¶76

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

Ameena Bee v. K. Kamalraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameena Bee v. K. Kamalraj

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

Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Geetha

Govindammal Vs B. Sanjai

Diviya Vs J.Vedhaprakash

The Branch Manager Vs Ammasai

The Divisional Manager Vs Iswarya

Arul Kumar Vs M/S.Surface Logistics