G.Selvi v. R.Tamilvanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN 1.G.Selvi 2.D.Abhishake 3.D.Aarthi ... Appellants
Versus
1.R.Tamilvanan 2.The IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, No.28, Old No.195, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17.
... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1348 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Special Sub-Court, Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Appellants : Mr.A.Baskaran For R1 : Mr.L.Rajendran For R2 : Mr.M.Jayaraj
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1348 of 2017, dated 02.08.2019.
1/8
2.The appellants have filed the claim petition stating that on 19.10.2016, while the deceased was crossing the road, he was hit by the motocycle bearing Regn No.TN 05 BC 7320 and sustained fatal injuries. 3.The respondents 1 and 2 resisted the claim petition and submitted that the accident did not take place due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and the deceased himself is a tort feasor; that in any case, the compensation claimed was excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4.Before the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants examined two witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 on their side. The 1st respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and had not marked any document. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
5.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence had held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle and being the insurer of the 1st respondent's motorcycle, directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company 2/8
to pay a sum of Rs.28,43,800/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants.
6.Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants filed the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
7.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a Central Government employee and aged about 57 years at the time of the accident; that the Tribunal had erroneously applied split multiplier which is contrary to the settled position of law and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Aswath Narayanan and ors. vs. M.Y.Samim Mohammed made in C.M.A.No.3416 of 2021 dated 28.10.2022 and prayed for enhancement of compensation by applying single multiplier.
8.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent per contra submitted that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is called for and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 3/8
9.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 10.The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 11.On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Tribunal in the instant case had adopted split multiplier, which is contrary to the settled position of law reiterated by this Court in several cases, including in Aswath Narayanan and ors. vs. M.Y.Samim Mohammed made in C.M.A.No.3416 of 2021 dated 28.10.2022. There is no dispute with regard to the other aspects of the award. The appellants had marked Ex.P10, to prove the income of the deceased. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs.66,752/- per month at the time of his death.
He is entitled to 15% enhancement towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC. The Tribunal had arrived at annual income as Rs.8,11,944/- after taking into consideration future prospects and deducting income tax. The said finding of the Tribunal with regard to the income is justified.
deceased was aged 57 years at the time of accident, the multiplier applicable is 9 and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses, the compensation towards loss of income would be as follows: Rs.8,11,944 X 9 x 2/3 = Rs.48,71,664/-.
The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection at Rs.1,00,000/- is reduced to Rs.80,000/- and the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards parental consortium is set aside. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: S.
No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1.
Loss of Dependency 25,93,710 48,71,664 Enhanced 2.
Loss of Consortium 40,000 40,000 Confirmed 3.
Loss of Estate 15,000 15,000 Confirmed 4.
Funeral Expenses 15,000 15,000 Confirmed 5.
Loss of love and affection for appellants 2 & 3 1,00,000 80,000 Reduced 6.
Parental consortium 80,000 - Set Aside Total 28,43,710 50,21,664 Enhanced by Rs.21,77,900/- rounded off to 28,43,800 rounded off to 50,21,700 5/8
12.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.28,43,800/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.50,21,700/-, together with interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount now determined by this Court, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary Court fee, if any on the enhanced award amount. No costs.
08.09.2023 rst/dpa Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order 6/8
To:
1.The Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, II Special Sub-Court, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
7/8
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
rst/dpa 08.09.2023 8/8