The Branch Manager,The Oriental Insurance Company, v. Thangammal (Died)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.10.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN C.M.A.No.163 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.1362 of 2016 The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 25-C, Arunagiri Complex, III Floor, Byepass Road, Hosur-635 109.
... Appellant/2nd Respondent /versus/ 1.Thangammal 2.Amirtham 3.Poongodi 4.Murugesan 5.Manivel ... Respondents 1 to 5/Petitioners 6.R.Saravanan 7.R.Krishnamoorthy ... Respondents 6 & 7/Respondents 1 & 3 Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgement and Decree dated 30.06.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.23 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge/Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases at Krishnagiri. For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.K.Prasanna for Mr.Mukund R.Pandian for R2 to R5 R1-Died R6 & R7-Ex-parte
J U D G M E N T
(The case has been heard through video conference) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents 2 to 5.
2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved by excessive compensation awarded to the claimants.
3. The deceased Ramasamy, an Ex-service man, aged about 55 years, while riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 24/2545, he was hit by another two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 29/Q.6076, which came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and thus, he died in the accident. Negligence on the part of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. The claim petition filed by the widow, sons, daughters and parents was contested by the Insurance Company on the ground of quantum of compensation.
4. The Tribunal, considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 55 years and was an Ex-Service man and after retirement, he was doing seasonal business in Mango and tamarind and also real estate business, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and applied multiplier, after deducting 1/5th for his personal expenditure.
5. It is contended that without any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.9,000/- as income for the deceased in the year 2006, who was aged about 55 years but deducted only 1/5th amount for his personal expenditure. The Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-, which should be notionally fixed as Rs.6,000/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased and proof of real estate business, deduction of personal expenditure should have been 1/3 or 1/4.
6. Heard the counsels. Records perused. This Court finds force in the submission of the appellant counsel. Hence, this Court modifies the notional income as Rs.6,000/-. Further, the Tribunal has not taken note of future prospects which has come into application in view of the Constitutional Bench decision rendered in Pranay Sethi case in the year 2017. Hence, 10% of the notional income i.e. Rs.600/- is added towards Future Prospects, which would come to Rs.6,600/- with deduction for personal expenditure at 1/4, i.e. Rs.1650/-. After deduction, the notional monthly income would be Rs.4950/-. Applying multiplier of 9, the loss of income is fixed at Rs.5,34,600/- (Rs.4950/- x 12 x 9) and for loss of consortium of the first claimant is awarded Rs.40,000/. Further, this Court awards Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Considering the year of the accident, the funeral expenses awarded by the Tribunal is modified and Rs.10,000/- is awarded. Hence, the total award amount is modified as below:
Loss of income Rs.5,34,600/- Loss of consortium for the first claimant Rs. 4 0,000/- Loss of love and affection for 2 to 5 petitioners (Rs.15,000 X 4) Rs. 60,000/- Transport of hospital Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 6,69,600/- ● Rounded off to Rs.6,70,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the entire award amount with interest was deposited in M.C.O.P.No.23 of 2013 pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 05.02.2016 and the respondents were permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,65,400/-.
8. In the light of the above, the appellant herein is permitted to withdraw the excess amount, if any, lying in the deposit of M.C.O.P.No.23 of 2013, after satisfying the claimants. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the balance compensation, as per the modified award passed by this Court, with 7.5% from the date of numbering the petition till the date of deposit, by filing proper application. The claimants are permitted to apportion the award amount as under: (i) Rs.4,00,000/- for the first claimant along with proportionate interest.
(ii)Rs.67,500/- each for the claimants 2 to 5 along with proportionate interest.
9. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Audit //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kmm
To District Judge/Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.
Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.Mukund R.Pandian, Advocate, S.R.No.34185. C.M.A.No.163 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.1362 of 2016 VG-II(CO) HS(02/09/2021)