Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Indira,W/O.Subramanian

Madras HC29 Aug 2024CMA(MD)/495/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against quantum awards in five fatal motor accident claims where an insured van's tyre burst caused a fire killing six workers travelling to a painting job. The High Court upheld insurer liability and the tribunal's findings, but re-quantified awards applying 7.5% interest, Rs.40,000 consortium cap and 40% future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Compensation re-quantified across M.C.O.P.Nos.29-33/2017 with 7.5% interest; insurer directed to deposit modified award within eight weeks.

The Branch Manager Vs Indira,W/O.Subramanian — Insurance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated :29.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

C.M.A(MD)Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶7

C.M.A.(MD).No.495 of 2018

¶8

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Monday Market, Kanyakumari District. ...Appellant

Vs.

1.Indira

2.Subramanian

3.Kalyani

4.Chinna Kalyani @ Kalyani

¶14

5.Vijayalakhsmi

¶15

6.Revathy ...Respondents

¶16

COMMON PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.29 to 33 of 2017 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court) Tenkasi.

¶17

1/26

¶18

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

¶19

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai (in all cases)

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.R.J.Karthick for R1 to R4

¶22

in C.M.A.(MD).No.495 & 496 of 2018 :for R1 to R3 in C.M.A.(MD).No.497 of 2018 :for R1 to R5 in C.M.A.(MD).No.498 of 2018 :for R1 to R6 in C.M.A.(MD).No.575 of 2018 :No Appearance for R6 in C.M.A.(MD).No.495 & 496 of 2018 :No appearance for R5 in C.M.A.(MD).No.497 of 2018 :No appearance for R7 in C.M.A.(MD).No.498 of 2018

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

[Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.]

¶25

The Insurance company filed these appeals challenging the quantum of the award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.29 to 33 of 2017, dated 04.09.2017, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge/Additional District Court, Tenkasi.

¶26

2.Facts of the case:

¶27

P.W.6's wife is owner of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing registration No.TN76-E-5353. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company. She is said to have obtained the contract to do painting works etc., with the Muthood Bank. Her husband P.W.6 managed the said contract work. In the said vehicle, his six employees are travelled to do the painting work. When they were proceeding

¶28

2/26

¶29

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

¶30

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶31

towards Tenkasi to Madurai, in the highway road, near the Settur Mahalingam Petrol Bulk opposite side, the tyre of the Omni van suddenly burst. Hence, the driver lost his control and in result, the said vehicle hit the tamarind tree. As a result, the said vehicle caught fire and all the six persons including driver died on the spot due to burn injuries. Therefore, their dependants have filed M.C.O.P.Nos.29 to 32 of 2017 claiming compensation before the Tribunal.

¶32

2.1.The insurance company filed a counter denying the allegation

¶33

that the accident happened due to bursting of tyre of the Omni van and accident actually happened due to carrying of highly inflammable materials and all the deceased were hired for carrying the hazardous goods and hence, there is a violation of the policy condition. Therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation.

¶34

3.To prove the claim, the claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and

¶35

marked Ex.p1 to Ex.p12 and on the side of the appellant insurance company, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked.

¶36

3/26

¶37

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

¶38

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶39

4.The learned Tribunal Judge considering the evidence passed the

¶40

impugned award of granting compensation. The details of the award are as follows:

¶41

M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2017 = Rs.17,82,600/M.C.O.P.No.30 of 2017 = Rs.17,82,600/M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2017 = Rs.20,36,600/M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2017 = Rs.22,91,800/M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2017 = Rs.25,27,904/-

¶42

Challenging the same, the insurance company have filed this batch

¶43

of appeals and raised the common issue and hence, all the appeals are clubbed together and taken for final disposal.

¶44

5. Finding of the Tribunal

¶45

The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence

¶46

has held that the accident happened due to bursting of tyre and hence the driver of the Omni van lost his control and hit the tamarind tree on the road side and the vehicle caught fire due to bursting of gas cylinder. The

¶47

learned tribunal Judge believed the evidence of P.W.6 holding that his

¶48

4/26

¶49

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

¶50

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶51

evidence is cogent and trustworthy and hence, the deceased all are workmen engaged by him to carry out the painting work. The learned

¶52

Tribunal also awarded following amounts:-

¶53

S. N o.	Heads	M.C.O.P No. 29/2017 amount in Rs.	M.C.O.P No. 30/2017 amount in Rs.	M.C.O.P No. 31/2017 amount in Rs.	M.C.O.P No. 32/2017 amount in Rs.	M.C.O.P No.32/2017 amount in Rs.
1	For Loss of Dependency	17,01,000	17,01,000	20,16,000	22,67,904	22,67,904/-
2	For Loss of Estate	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000
3	For Loss of Love and Affection (to petitioners 1 to 4 each @ Rs.25,000 X 4)	1,00,000	1,00,000	50,000 (petitioner 2 & 3 each Rs.25000)	1,00,000	1,25,000
4	For Funeral and Transportation expenses	25,000	25,000	25,000	25,000	25,000
5	For Loss of consortium to the first petitioner	----	----	1,00,000	1,00,000/-	1,00,000
	Total	18,36,000/ -	18,36,000/-	22,01,000/-	25,02,904/ -	25,27,904/-

¶54

Assailing the said award, the appellant Insurance Company have filed

¶55

these appeals.

¶56

6. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant

¶57

(i)The vehicle involved in the accident was Omni van and the same

¶58

5/26

¶59

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

¶60

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶61

was hired from the owner of the vehicle and hence, there is a violation of

¶62

the policy condition. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶63

(ii)In the said vehicle, highly inflammable materials were taken and in result, the vehicle caught fire. Hence, carrying the high inflammable articles is violation of the policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶64

(iii)The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of some of the claimants that the deceased were hired and erroneously gave a different finding that P.W.6 husband of the owner was doing painting contract labour and hence all the deceased were taken in the said vehicle for carrying the hazardous goods. Therefore, they cannot be treated as labourers for doing painting work.

¶65

(iv)The learned Tribunal Judge in all cases granted interest of 9% instead of 7.5%.

¶66

(v)The Tribunal also awarded more than Rs.40,000/- towards Loss of consortium and love and affection.

¶67

(vi)The Tribunal erroneously granted 50% of the future prospects instead of 40% as per the Pranay Sethi case.

¶68

6/26

¶69

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

¶70

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶71

(vii)The Tribunal also erroneously deducted 1/3 for the personal

¶72

expenditure of the bachelor, instead of 1/2.

¶73

7. Submission of the learned counsel for the claimants

¶74

(i) P.W.6 is the husband of the owner of the vehicle. He deposed that his wife was painting contractor for the Muthood Finance Corporation Company for painting the Hoarding, Banners and Wall Advertisement of the company at various places. The deceased are all the employees of his wife. Therefore, they are covered under the policy. The same was properly considered by the learned Tribunal Judge. Therefore, he seeks to reject the contention of the insurance company that the deceased were hired and taken in the vehicle.

¶75

(ii)The accident happened due to the tyre burst and after the tyre burst, the said vehicle hit tamarind tree and caught fire and all the occupants including driver died on the spot. The said fire was not caused due to the carrying of the paints and thinner as alleged by the insurance company. The paints and thinner etc., assuming were carried in the vehicle the same cannot be treated as highly inflammable materials.

¶76

(iii)It is true that the learned Tribunal Judge has granted 9% of

¶77

7/26

¶78

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

¶79

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶80

interest instead of 7.5% but, as per the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 9% can be applied.

¶81

(iv)It is not in all cases deduction for personal expenditure of the deceased bachelor is 1/2. In some cases, where the dependants are the unmarried sisters etc., deduction of 1/3 can be made. Therefore, the learned Tribunal Judge has correctly decided.

¶82

(v)He fairly submitted that as per the Pranay Sethi case, the award of 50% future prospects is not correct.

¶83

This Court carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants and perused the materials available on record.

¶84

The following points arise for consideration of this appeal:

¶85

9.1.Whether the negligence is correctly fixed on the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant?

¶86

9.2.Whether the learned tribunal Judge correctly fixed the liability

¶87

upon the insurance company for the death of the occupants of the car?

¶88

8/26

¶89

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

¶90

10 . Discussion on Liability:

¶91

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶92

The insurance company repudiated their liability on the ground that all the deceased were hired and taken in the vehicle and the accident occurred due to carrying of highly inflammable materials in the vehicle, which resulted in fire. They denied that the accident was caused due to the tyre burst and in result, the vehicle was hit against the tamarind tree and caught fire. In a similar tyre burst case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court fastened the liability upon the insurance company in the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd reported in 2001 (2) SCC 9 and also in another case of Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , reported in 2000 ACJ 801 where the insured vehicle was hired by unknown person and accident was caused by fire.

¶93

10.1.The Registration Certificate of the vehicle was produced under Ex.P3. From the said registration Certificate the vehicle it is seen that it was fitted with the gas cylinder and the same was running by gas. As per the evidence of the independent evidence P.W.5 and FIR, it is clear that on the date of the occurrence on 09.04.2013 at 04.00 a.m., in Madurai to Tenkasi Main Road, opposite to the Sethur Mahalingam

¶94

9/26

¶95

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

¶96

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶97

Petrol Bulk, when the insured vehicle was proceeding, the tyre of the vehicle burst and driver lost his control and hit against the road side tamarind tree in result, the van caught fire and all the four occupants and the driver were burnt alive and died on the spot. This evidence of P.W.5 independent eyewitness is corroborated by the registration of the FIR with the above contents and closure of the criminal case. The contra case pleaded by the insurance company that the vehicle was caught fire due to taking of the paint and thinner is not correct. This Court perused both the oral evidence and documentary evidence. P.W.5 in the cross examination clearly deposed that only empty paint buckets and the wooden stand alone were found available in that place. Further, no contra evidence was adduced by the insurance company. R.W.2, investigating Officer filed report under Ex.R2 dated 14.07.2014. They conducted the investigation after the incident and in the said report, he has not stated that the source of the fire was because of carrying highly inflammable materials in the vehicle and no material also was produced. He also deposed that he submitted report on the basis of the information collected from various persons. In the report, it is not revealed that he has examined the eyewitness. Hence, his report is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence

¶98

10/26

¶99

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

¶100

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶101

of the independent eyewitness P.W.2. Therefore, this Court rejects the contention of the appellant that accident happened not due to the bursting of tyre and in result, the drvier lost control and dashed against the road side tamarind tree. The specific case of the appellant that the accident happened due to the carrying of the highly inflammable materials has not been proved. Therefore, this Court holds that accident happened due to the tyre burst and thereby, the driver lost control and dashed against the tamarind tree because of fire of the gas cylinder. The motor vehicle inspection report also stated about the accident. Therefore, the case of the appellant that the accident caused due to the carrying of the highly inflammable material cannot be accepted.

¶102

10.2.P.W.6 deposed that his wife was the owner of the insured vehicle. She was the contractor to carry out painting, work of hoarding of the Muthood Bankers. She carried the work through employment of the deceased. His evidence is cogent and also trustworthy. Merely because he has not produced any records to prove the contract work, no circumstances were elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Merely, on the basis rustic evidence of the claimants, the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be eschewed. Further, R.W.1, Manager of the company was examined and

¶103

11/26

¶104

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

¶105

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶106

he deposed that the policy was comprehensive policy and he deposed that the deceased are third parties and the relevant portion of the evidence is follows:

¶107

,we;j egh;fs; kw;Wk; thfd Xl;Leh; vq;fs; fhg;gPL epWtdj;ijg; nghWj;jtiu 3k; egh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;. ,we;j egh;fs; rk;gtj;jd;W khdhkJiu kw;Wk; kJiu gFjpf;F ngapd;l;bq; Ntiy nra;a nrd;whh;fs; vd;W fhty; Jiw tprhuizapy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;.

¶108

10.3.R.W.2 deposed that P.W.6 was painting contractor of the

¶109

Muthood Finance and he was the husband of the owner of the vehicle

¶110

and also deposed that to carry out the painting work the contractor usually supplied the paint thinner and his evidence is follows:

¶111

Kj;Jhl; igdhd;]; epWtdj;jpw;F ngapd;l;bq; fhz;l;uhf;lh; ,rf;fp nrl;bahh; kfd; nre;jpy;Fkhh; vd;W $wpAs;Nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd;. nre;jpy;Fkhh; tpgj;J thfdj;jpd; chpikahshpd; fzth; vd;why; rhpjhd;. nghJthf ngapd;l; Ntiy nra;gth;fSf;F Njitahd ngapz;l; jpd;dh; ghypR Mfpatw;iw fl;bl chpikahsNu thq;fpf;nfhLg;gJ tof;fk; vd;why; rhpjhd;.

¶112

12/26

¶113

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

¶114

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶115

Therefore, this Court finds that the deceased travelled in Omni van to carry out the painting work of the owner of the vehicle and hence, they are clearly covered under the category of workers. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to differ with the said finding of the learned Tribunal Judge.

¶116

11. Discussion on Interest;

¶117

Section 171 of the MV Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that “in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at “ such rate” .

¶118

“ Such rate ” was interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

¶119

case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd reported in 2001 (2) SCC 9 , as interest granted by the Nationalized banks by observing that with a change in economy and policy of Reserve Bank of India, the interest rate has to be lowest. Therefore, the Courts usually granted interest at the rate of 7.5% ie., “ prevailing rate of interest ” and hence, in all cases, this Court reduces the interest from 9% to 7.5%.

¶120

13/26

¶121

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

¶122

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶123

12. Discussion on consortium:

¶124

As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award more than Rs.40,000/either under the head of Loss of consortium or under the head of loss of Love and affection. Therefore, in all cases, the award amount under the head of loss of consortium and the head of love and affection is reduced to Rs.40,000/-.

¶125

13.Discussion on the Deduction for personal expenditure of the

¶126

bachelor:

¶127

The ratio laid down by the “ Sarala Varma case ” to take 50% of the personal expenditure in the case of the bachelor was re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in “ Pranay Sethi case ”. Therefore, this Court inclines to take 50% deduction of the personal expenditure in the case of the bachelor.

¶128

14/26

¶129

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

¶130

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶131

Discussion on the Future Prospects:

¶132

From the evidence of the claimants, it is found that all the deceased are labourers and hence, the learned Tribunal Judge erred in adding 50% of Future prospects instead of 40% as per the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi Case.

¶133

15.In view of the above discussion the award passed by the learned

¶134

Tribunal Judge is re-determined to the extend hereunder:

¶135

15.1. M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2017

¶136

The claimants pleaded that the deceased was a bachelor and aged about 27 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal Judge correctly fixed the monthly income of Rs.10,500/- and 50% towards future prospect is added instead of 40% and the same comes around Rs.4,200/- and loss of income is calculated as follows:

¶137

10,500 X 40/100 = 4,200/-.

¶138

14,700 X ½ X12 X 18 =15,87,600/-

¶139

The claimants 1 to 4 are the parents and brother of the deceased

¶140

15/26

¶141

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

¶142

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶143

and they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of love

¶144

and affection.

¶145

Loss of Love and affection 4 X 40,000/- = 1,60,000/-

¶146

*Heads*		*Amount* *awarded by the* *Tribunal*	*Re-quantified* *Amount by this* *Court*	*Status*
For Loss of dependency		17,01,000/-	15,87,600/-	reduced
For Loss of Estate		10,000/-	10,000/-	confirmed
For Loss of Love Affection	and	1,00,000/- (to claimants 1 to 4 each @ Rs. 25,000/- X4)	1,60,000/- (to claimants 1 to 4 each @ Rs. 40,000/- X4)	enhanced
For funeral Transportation expenses	and	25,000/-	25,000/-	confirmed
*Total*		*18,36,000/-*	_17,82,600/- _	*Reduced*

¶147

15.2. M.C.O.P.No.30 of 2017

¶148

The claimants pleaded that the deceased was a bachelor and aged about 24 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal Judge correctly fixed the monthly income of Rs.10,500/- and 50% towards future prospect is added instead of 40% and the same comes around Rs.4,200/- and loss of income is calculated as follows:

¶149

10,500 X 40/100 = 4,200/-. 14,700 X ½ X12 X 18 =15,87,600/-

¶150

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

¶151

16/26

¶152

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶153

The claimants 1 to 4 are the parents and sisters of the deceased and

¶154

they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of love and

¶155

affection.

¶156

Loss of Love and affection 4 X 40,000/- = 1,60,000/-

¶157

*Heads*		*Amount* *awarded by* *the Tribunal*	*Re-quantified* *Amount by this* *Court*	*Status*
For Loss of dependency		17,01,000/-	15,87,600/-	reduced
For Loss of Estate		10,000/-	10,000/-	confirmed
For Loss of Love Affection	and	1,00,000/- (to claimants 1 to 4 each @ Rs.25,000/- X4)	1,60,000/- (to claimants 1 to 4 each @ Rs. 40,000/- X4)	enhanced
For funeral Transportation expenses	and	25,000/-	25,000/-	confirmed
*Total*		*18,36,000/-*	_17,82,600/- _	*Reduced*

¶158

15.3.M.C.O.P.NO.31 of 2017

¶159

The claimants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal Judge correctly fixed the monthly income of Rs.10,500/- and 50% towards future prospect is added instead of 40% and the same comes around Rs.4,200/- and loss of income

¶160

is calculated as follows

¶161

10,500 X 40/100 = 4,200/-.

¶162

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

¶163

17/26

¶164

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶165

14,700 - 1/3 = 9,800/-

¶166

The learned Tribunal Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

¶167

towards loss of consortium to his wife the same is reduced to Rs.40,000/and the amount awarded under the head of Loss of Love and affection Rs.25,000/- each to the children of the deceased and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- each and this Court applies the multiplier as “16” as per the Sarala Verma Case.

¶168

9,800 X 12 X 16 = 18,81,600/-

¶169

*Heads*	*Amount* *awarded by* *the Tribunal*	*Re-quantified* *Amount by this* *Court*	*Status*
For Loss of dependency	20,16,000/-	18,81,600/-	reduced
For Loss of Estate	10,000/-	10,000/-	confirmed
Loss of consortium to 1^st petitioner	1,00,000/-	40,000/-	reduced
Loss of Love and affection	50,000/- (claimants 2 at 3 at Rs.25,000 X 2)	80,000/- (claimants 2 & 3 at Rs.40,000 X 4)	enhanced
For funeral and Transportation expenses	25,000/-	25,000/-	confirmed
*Total*	*22,01,000/-*	_20,36,600/- _	*Reduced*

¶170

15.4.M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2017

¶171

The claimants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 35 years

¶172

18/26

¶173

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

¶174

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶175

at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal Judge correctly fixed the monthly income of Rs.10,500/- and 50% towards future prospect is added instead of 40% and the same comes around Rs.4,200/- and loss of income is calculated as follows

¶176

10,500 X 40/100 = 4,200/-.

¶177

14,700 – ¼ =11,025/-

¶178

The learned Tribunal Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/towards loss of consortium to his wife the same is reduced to Rs.40,000/and the amount awarded under the head of Loss of Love and affection Rs.25,000/- each to the children of the deceased and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- each and this Court applies the multiplier as

¶179

“16” as per the Sarala Verma Case.

¶180

11,025 X12 X 16 =21,16,800/-

¶181

*Heads*	*Amount* *awarded by* *the Tribunal*	*Re-quantified* *Amount by this* *Court*	*Status*
For Loss of dependency	20,16,000/-	21,16,800/-	reduced
For Loss of Estate	10,000/-	10,000/-	confirmed
Loss of consortium to 1^st petitioner	1,00,000/-	40,000/-	reduced
Loss of Love and affection	1,00,000/- (claimants 2 to 4 at Rs.25,000 X 4)	1,20,000/- (claimants 2 to 4 at Rs.40,000 X 3 )	enhanced

¶182

19/26

¶183

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

¶184

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶185

	*Heads*		*Amount* *awarded by*	*Re-quantified* *Amount by this*	*Status*
			*the Tribunal*	*Court*
For	funeral	and	25,000/-	25,000/-	confirmed
Transp	ortation expenses
	*Total*		*25,02,904/-*	_22,91,800/- _	*Reduced*

¶186

15.5.M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2017

¶187

The claimants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal Judge correctly fixed the monthly income of Rs.10,500/- and 50% towards future prospect is added instead of 40% and the same comes around Rs.4,200/- and loss of income is calculated as follows

¶188

10,500 X 40/100 = 4,200/-.

14,700 – ¼ =11,025/-

20/26

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

¶193

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶194

11,025 X12 X 16 =21,16,800/-

¶195

*Heads*	*Amount* *awarded by* *the Tribunal*	*Re-quantified* *Amount by this* *Court*	*Status*
For Loss of dependency	22,67,000/-	21,16,800/-	reduced
For Loss of Estate	10,000/-	10,000/-	confirmed
Loss of consortium to 1^st petitioner	1,00,000/-	40,000/-	reduced
Loss of Love and affection	1,25,000/- (claimants 2 to 4 at Rs.25,000 X 5)	1,20,000/- (claimants 2 to 4 at Rs.40,000 X 3 )	enhanced
For funeral and Transportation expenses *Total*	25,000/- *25,27,904/-*	25,000/- _23,11,800/- _	confirmed *Reduced*

¶196

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed. The compensation awarded in M.C.O.P. cases on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Tenkasi, dated 04.09.2017 is hereby requantified in the following manner, along with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of

¶197

realization:

¶198

*Sl.* No	*M.C.O.P.Nos.*	*Amount awarded* *by the Tribunal*	*Re-quantified* *Amount by this*
			*Court*
1	29 of 2017	18,36,000/-	17,82,600/-
2	30 of 2017	18,36,000/-	17,82,600/-

¶199

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

¶200

21/26

¶201

3
4

¶202

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶203

3	31 of 2017	22,01,000/-	20,36,600/-
4	32 of 2017	25,02,904/-	22,91,800/-
5	33 of 2017	25,27,904/-	23,11,800/-

¶204

The appellant/insurance is directed to deposit the modified award amount less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimants in any one of the nationalized Bank in a fixed deposit under cumulative deposit scheme, till he attain majority. The guardian of the respective minor claimants are permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank only for the welfare of the minors. The claimatns are entitled to receive the following compensation amount:

¶205

C.M.A.(MD).No.495 of 2018:

¶206

*Claimants*	*Amount in Rs.*
Mother of the deceased	8,82,600/-
Father of the deceased	5,00,000/-
Brother of the deceased	2,00,000/-
Brother of the deceased	2,00,000/-

¶207

C.M.A.(MD).No.496 of 2018:

¶208

*Claimants*	*Amount in Rs.*
Mother of the deceased	8,82,600/-
Father of the deceased	5,00,000/-
Brother of the deceased	2,00,000/-
Brother of the deceased	2,00,000/-

¶209

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

¶210

22/26

¶211

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶212

C.M.A.(MD).No.497 of 2018:

¶213

*Claimants*	*Amount in Rs.*
Wife of the deceased	10,36,000/-
Daughter of the deceased	5,00,000/-
Son of the deceased	5,00,000/-

¶214

C.M.A.(MD).No.498 of 2018

¶215

*Claimants*	*Amount in Rs.*
Wife of the deceased	10,00,000/-
Daughter of the deceased	3,50,000/-
Daughter of the deceased	3,50,000/-
Daughter of the deceased	3,50,000/-
Mother of the deceased	2,61,800/-

¶216

C.M.A.(MD).No.575 of 2018

¶217

*Claimants*	*Amount in Rs.*
Wife of the deceased	10,11,800/-
Son of the deceased	3,00,000/-
Son of the deceased	3,00,000/-
Daughter of the deceased	3,00,000/-
Mother of the deceased	2,00,000/-
Father of the deceased	2,00,000/-

¶218

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

¶219

23/26

¶220

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018

¶221

The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶222

[P.V.J,] [K.K.R.K.J,]

¶223

29.08.2024

¶224

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No sbn

¶225

24/26

¶226

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

¶227

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.495 to 498 and 575 of 2018