Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager v. S.Rathna

Madras HC27 Mar 2024CMA/928/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against quantum of compensation in a motor accident claim. The Court recalculated monthly income based on a ten-month period, increased interest to 7.5%, affirmed contributory negligence deduction, and modified the total award distribution.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation fixed at Rs.76,06,650/- with interest at 7.5%; shares for minors to be kept in Fixed Deposit.

The Divisional Manager Vs S.Rathna — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMA.No.928 of 2022

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

C.M.A.No.928 of 2022 and

¶7

C.M.P.Nos.6901 and 6903 of 2022

¶8

The Divisional Manager, M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Third Party Claim, II Floor, Katpadi Road, Vellore. ... Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.S.Rathna 2.Minor Jai Sri 3.Minor S.Tamil 4.K.Chandran 5.J.Prabu

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 22.02.2021 made in MCOP.No.232 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

CMA.No.928 of 2022

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja For R5 : No appearance *******

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶19

The Insurance Company is on appeal. Challenge is to the quantum

¶20

of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Since the challenge is restricted to the quantum of compensation, we do not deem it fit to delve upon the other aspects viz., negligence and liability.

¶21

2. Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/

¶22

Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.47,649/-, overlooking the fact that the deceased was paid a sum of Rs.6,674/- as arrears of allowance and pay. Therefore, the amount should have been deducted from the salary bill for the month of January 2017.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

CMA.No.928 of 2022

¶26

3. Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

claimant would submit that the deceased being an army man, arrears of pay and allowance is a recurring feature and the same cannot be said to be an excessive addition.

¶28

4. We have considered the rival submissions.

¶29

5. We find that Ex.P10 itself provides for a fair calculation of the income of the deceased. In Ex.P10 the actual taxable income received upto January 2017 has been shown as Rs.4,06,744/- that is for the period of 10 months from 1^st April 2016 to January 2017. Therefore, the monthly average income would be Rs.40,674/-. If that figure is adopted, either of the counsel will have no grievance.

¶30

6. Hence, the award of the Tribunal is modified by adopting the monthly income at Rs.40,674/-, while sustaining the compensation granted under the other heads as well as the loss of future prospects. Thus worked out, the compensation that the claimant would be entitled to will be Rs.40,674/-. If we add 50% towards future prospects i.e., Rs.20,337/-, the

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

CMA.No.928 of 2022

¶34

monthly income would be Rs.61,011/-. We round it off to Rs.61,000/-.

¶35

After deducting 1/4^th towards personal expenses, the total loss of dependency would be worked out as follows:-

¶36

Rs.61,000/- x 12 x 16 x ¾ = Rs.87,84,000/-

¶37

7. Thus, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.87,84,000/-. If we

¶38

add other compensation granted under the other heads, which is about Rs.1,65,000/-. The total compensation would be Rs.89,49,000/-.

¶39

8. The Tribunal had deducted 15% towards contributory negligence, since the deceased was not wearing the helmet. We approve the said conclusion of the Tribunal. Therefore, we have to deduct a sum of Rs.13,42,350/- [15% of Rs.89,49,000/-] from the compensation as fixed above. Thus, the total compensation payable would be Rs.76,06,650/-. Out of the said sum, the wife of the deceased/ 1^st claimant will take Rs.26,06,650/-. The children viz., the minor claimants will take Rs.22,00,000/- each. The remaining Rs.6,00,000/- will go to the father of the deceased.

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

CMA.No.928 of 2022

¶43

9. We find that the Tribunal has awarded only interest at 6%. The

¶44

normal interest awarded in the motor accident cases will be 7.5%. Hence,

¶45

we enhance the interest to 7.5%. It is made clear that the claimant will be entitled to interest at 7.5% on the amount apportioned to each of them. The share of the minor claimants inclusive of interest shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in a Nationalized Bank till they attain the age of majority. Upon they attaining the age of majority, their shares shall be paid over to them. The Insurance Company will have eight (8) weeks time to deposit the above compensation, less the amount, if any, already deposited.

¶46

10. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.

¶47

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶48

(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 27.03.2024

¶49

dsa Index : No Internet : Yes Neutral Citation : No Speaking order

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

¶52

CMA.No.928 of 2022

¶53

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶54

dsa

¶55

¶56

The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vaniyambadi.

¶57

C.M.A.No.928 of 2022

¶58

27.03.2024

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

The Divisional Manager v. S.Rathna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. S.Rathna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Jeevanandam Vs Rajalakshmi Sungavally

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs T. Malarkodi

Selvarani Vs Rajathi

Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs Vikram Aggarwal

The Commissioner Vs K.Marayammal

Selvarani Vs Rajathi