Ramesh v. The Proprietor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA 1.Ramesh 2.Sasi ...Appellants Vs 1.The Proprietor, Sri Lakshmi Devi Transports, No.7, Jagadevi Village & Post, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri - 635 203.
2.The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, 3rd Floor, Anuradha Complex, Bangalore Road, Opp. To Raja Theatre, Krishnagiri - 635 001.
... Respondents 1/9
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 20.10.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.296 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri.
For Appellants :
Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj For Respondent 1:
No Appearance For Respondent 2:
Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam JUDGEMENT The petitioners have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P.No.296 of 2021. 2/9
2. The parents of the deceased Regan are the appellants and they had claimed a total compensation of a sum of R.50,00,000/-, for his death in a road accident. The deceased Regan is stated to be 20 years of age and working in a private concern, doing painting work. The appellants would claim that he was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month.
3. The Tribunal on considering the evidence had fixed a notional monthly income of a sum of Rs.9,000/- and after adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting 50% towards personal expenses and adopting multiplier of 18 had arrived at a compensation of a sum of Rs.13,60,800/- under the head of loss of dependency. The appellants would submit that the deceased would have definitely earned at least Rs.15,000/- per month, considering the fact that he was a painter. 3/9
4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company would submit that Rs.15,000/- was on the higher side and that the award appears to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, the learned counsel would plead that the award passed by the Tribunal may be confirmed.
5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.
6. The deceased is stated to be a painter and this fact has not been refuted by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the notional income of Rs.13,000/- can be adopted, to this 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Therefore, the monthly notional income would be a sum of Rs.18,200/- and the annual income would be Rs.2,18,400/-. To the said amount, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Taking into account the age of the deceased, appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 18. Therefore, the amount under the head of loss of 4/9
dependency would be a sum of Rs.19,65,600/-. The amounts granted under the other heads remain unaltered.
7. Therefore, the total compensation would stand enhanced to a sum of Rs.20,75,600/-. The Tribunal has fastened 20% liability on the deceased. Therefore, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.16,60,480/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realization of the award.
8. The award of the Tribunal below is re-worked as follows: Heads Award of the Tribunal Award of the High Court Loss of Dependency Rs.13,60,800/- Rs.19,65,600/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs.80,000 Rs.80,000 Total Rs.14,70,800/- Rs.20,75,600/- Total after deducting 20% contributory negligence Rs.11,76,640/- Rs.16,60,480/- 5/9
9. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.296 of 2021. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the award amount, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount. The appellants shall show proof of payment of the Court fees and only on such proof they shall be permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
24.11.2022 kan 6/9
Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order To, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri.
7/9
P.T.ASHA, J., kan 8/9
24.11.2022 9/9