Seethalakshmi v. Hotel Suruguru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI 1.
Seethalakshmi 2.
Arunkumar 3.
Anitha 4.
Poorani ...Appellants Vs.
1.
Hotel Surguru, Rep. by its Vice President Amarnath.K, No.104, S.V. Patel Salai, Puducherry.
2.
United India Insurance Company Limited, No.134, Greams Road, Silingi Building, IV Floor, Chennai - 600 006.
...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2023 made in MCOP.No.955 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai.
1/9
For Appellants : Mr.Amar Dineshbhai Pandiya For Respondents : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, for R2 : Notice dispensed with, for R1
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2023 made in MCOP.No.955 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the claimants have come up with this appeal.
2. Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either side, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. It is the case of the claimants that, on 09.12.2019 at about 18 hours, when the deceased Gnanasekar was riding a motor cycle bearing Regn.No.PY-01-CP-2371 in ECR Road near Chetty Nagar Bus stop, at that time, an Innova Car bearing Reg.No.PY-05-D-7585 owned by the 1st 2/9
respondent insured with the 2nd respondent, driven by the driver came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle driven by the deceased, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Thereby, the appellants, who are the dependents of the deceased Gnanasekar filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.955 of 2020 claiming a compensation of Rs.49,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.26 and on the side of respondents, no witnesses were examined, however marked a copy of MVI report as exhibit R.1.
After trial, though the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle, however, awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.19,45,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Gnanasekar. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
3/9
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the above said accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle and the accident is of the year 2019 and at the time of accident, the deceased was only aged about 48 years and was a Fisherman by profession and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, however, the tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/-, which is very meagre and the same is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in catena of decisions and thereby, the same has to be increased to Rs.20,000/- per month. Further, the compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contended that, by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, which does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
4/9
6. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties and therefore, this Court is not venturing into the same.
8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is concerned, the accident is of the year 2019 and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 48 years and he was a Fisherman by profession and the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.12,000/-, which is on the lower side. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Company reported in 2014 (1) TANMAC 459, and also considering the age of the deceased as also the claimants, fixing a notional income of Rs.15,000/- and adding future prospects at 25%, as has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680, the income per month is quantified at Rs.18,750/-. Deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of income to the 5/9
family is arrived at Rs.14,062.50/- per month and the same is rounded off to Rs.14,065/- per month and the deceased being aged about 48 years, as evidenced from the records, adopting the multiplier of 13 as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.14,065/- * 12 * 13 = Rs.21,94,140/-.
9. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under other heads are just and reasonable and the same does not requires interference of this Court.
10. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under :- 6/9
Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Modified Award Amount (Rs.) Loss of income 17,55,000/- 21,94,140/- Loss of love and affection/consortium 1,60,000/- 1,60,000/- Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Total 19,45,000/- 23,84,140/-
11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed in part and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.955 of 2020 is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.19,45,000/- to Rs.23,84,140/-. The 2nd respondent Insurance is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of MCOP.No.955 of 2020 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,60,140/- and the 2nd and 3rd appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each and the 4th 7/9
appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,24,000/-, with proportionate interest and costs. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the said amount to the appellants/ claimants directly to their bank accounts through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter, upon production of proof with regard to payment of Court fee on the enhanced compensation. It is underscored that the appellants are not entitled to any interest for the default period, if any. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 21.11.2024 skt NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No To:
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
8/9
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt 21.11.2024 9/9