Allowed

S.Mehaboob Bivi, v. Kamatchi Sundaram

Madras HC5 Jun 2024CMA(MD)/1826/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, holding that the multiplier must be based on the age of the deceased (28 years, multiplier 17) rather than the mother. The Court enhanced the loss of income component from Rs.1,92,000 to Rs.4,08,000, raising the total award to Rs.4,48,000.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed; the Tribunal was set aside on the issue of the multiplier; the total compensation was enhanced to Rs.4,48,000 to be deposited by the respondents.

S.Mehaboob Bivi, Vs Kamatchi Sundaram — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A(MD)No.1826 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.1826 of 2013

1.S.Mehaboob Bivi

2.S.Roshanisha

... Appellants

(Petitioners 1 and 2 of unsound mind represented by one S.Ameernisha, wife of Shagul Hameed, Sister of the deceased Akbar Basha)

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.Kamatchi Sundaram

¶13

2.M/s.New Inida Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Ibrahim Park,

¶14

Trichy-8.

¶15

3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Limited, Division-I, Salem. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgement and decree, dated 18.02.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.1690 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub-Court, Trichy.

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

C.M.A(MD)No.1826 of 2013

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth R1 : Dismissed For R2 : Mr.K.Murugesan For R3 : Mr.M.Prakash *****

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The claimants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶23

2.It is a case of fatal. The only ground that was raised in the appeal is that the Tribunal has granted compensation by taking the age of mother of the deceased. It is a settled principle in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation that the age of the deceased has to be taken for arriving at the compensation. In the present case, the age of the deceased is 28, hence, the applicable multiplier is '17'. Hence, the multiplier fixed by the Tribunal, ie., '8' is enhanced to '17' by this Court and the compensation granted under the head of loss of income is enhanced by this Court. The compensation granted under the other heads are confirmed. Therefore, this Court interfering in the impugned order that portion of the order wherein the wrong multiplier is fixed is set aside.

¶24

3.The enhanced award amount granted by this court is as under:

¶25

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

¶26

2/6

¶27

C.M.A(MD)No.1826 of 2013

¶28

Sl.No.	Head of Compensation	Modified award granted bythis Court	Award granted by the Tribunal
1.	Loss of Income (Rs.24,000 * 17)	Rs.4,08,000/- (enhanced)	Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.24,000 * 8)
2.	Loss of Love and Affection (Rs.15,000/- * 2)	Rs.30,000/- (confirmed)	Rs.30,000/-
3.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.5,000/-(confirmed)	Rs.5,000/-
4.	Transport Expenses	Rs.5,000/-(confirmed)	Rs.5,000/-
Total c this Co	ompensation granted by urt	Rs.4,48,000/- (enhanced)	Total = Rs. 2,32,000/-

¶29

Hence, the total compensation granted by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.2,32,000/- is enhanced to Rs.4,48,000/- by this Court.

¶30

4.Therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to deposit Rs.4,48,000/(respondents 2 and 3 shall deposit Rs.2,24,000/- each) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P., on the file of claims Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both the claimants are entitled to equal share in the compensation. Since the claimants are of unsound mind, the Tribunal has directed to deposit the compensation in two interest accruing accounts equally (since there are two claimants) in any Nationalized Bank and the representative of the claimants namely, S.Ameernisha is entitled to withdraw the interest amount from the said two accounts once in three months until the life time

¶31

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

¶32

3/6

¶33

C.M.A(MD)No.1826 of 2013

¶34

of the claimants in order to take care of the claimants. After the lifetime of the claimants, the amount shall be withdrawn by the said S.Ameernisha. Since this Court is enhancing the compensation, the claimants are liable to pay the balance

¶35

Court fee, if any.

¶36

With the above said directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

¶37

allowed. No costs.

¶38

05.06.2024

¶39

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶40

Tmg

¶41

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

¶42

4/6

¶43

C.M.A(MD)No.1826 of 2013

¶44

¶45

1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub-Court, Trichy.

¶46

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

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

¶48

5/6

¶49

C.M.A(MD)No.1826 of 2013

¶50

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶51

Tmg

¶52

C.M.A(MD)No.1826 of 2013

¶53

05.06.2024

¶54

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

¶55

6/6

S.Mehaboob Bivi, v. Kamatchi Sundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mehaboob Bivi, v. Kamatchi Sundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Keerthana Vs The District Collector

S.Nirmala Vs T.Shanmuganantham

1. Vinju G.Rajaram (Died) 2.Vinju G.Naganathan Vs Vinju Sundaraiammal

Muthusamy Vs Raman

P.Hariharan Vs Mr. Saravanan

Menaka @ Kuppammal Vs the Branch Manager