Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & R. SUBBIAH, JJ.
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Vellore
Versus
Chandirika & Another
C.M.A. No. 3194 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 23-09-2013
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claims - Quantum of compensation – Claim of compensation - Brief facts are that while husband of claimant / first respondent herein Muniappan was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing registration a bus belonging to appellant transport corporation bearing registration came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against two wheeler and caused accident - In said accident deceased Muniappan sustained severe injuries - Immediately he was taken to Government Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Hospital where he died – Hence wife of deceased along with her minor son filed claim petition claiming a sum as compensation - Resisting claim petition Transport Corporation has filed a counter affidavit denying age occupation and income of deceased - It was also stated that driver of bus was not responsible for accident and therefore Transport Corporation is not liable to pay compensation – Held, In case of death insurer indemnifies to pay sum to heirs again in terms of contract for premium paid – Again this amount is receivable by claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on insureds death - Death is only a step or contingency in terms of contract to receive amount - Similarly any cash bank balance shares fixed deposits etc though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by heirs on account of ones death but all these have no correlation with amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death - How could such an amount come within periphery of Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as pecuniary advantage liable for deduction - When court seek principle of loss and gain it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus inter se between them and not to which there is no semblance of any correlation - Insured contributes his own money for which he receives amount which has no correlation to compensation computed as against tortfeasor for his negligence on account of accident - As aforesaid amount receivable as compensation under Act is on account of injury or death without making any contribution towards it then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions of insured be deducted out of amount receivable under Motor Vehicles Act - Amount under this Act he receives without any contribution - As court have said compensation payable under Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while amount receivable under life insurance policy is contractual - It is made clear by dictum laid down in above judgment that pension amount is a pecuniary advantage received on account of ones death and same has no correlation to compensation computed as against tort-feasor for his negligence on account of accident - Pension amount is not liable to be deducted from compensation amount – Court are not inclined to deduct pension amount presently wife of deceased is receiving from compensation amount awarded under head of loss of income - With regard to income tax court are of opinion that though monthly income of deceased fixed is subject to deduction of income tax - Considering fact that Tribunal has failed to add of monthly income towards future prospects now court are not inclined to deduct any amount towards income tax - Appeal is dismissed
R. Subbiah, J.
1. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded in the claim petition filed by the claimant / the first respondent herein in M.C.O.P.No.24 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Cheyyar, Tiruvannmalai, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and arbitrary.
2. The brief facts are, that on 5.4.2008 at about 5.30 a.m., while the husband of the claimant / the first respondent herein viz., Muniappan was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN V 6498, a bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation bearing registration No.TN 21 N 0737 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler and caused the accident. In the said accident, the deceased Muniappan sustained severe injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital at Vandavasi and thereafter, he was shifted to Ramachandran Hospital, Porur, where he died. Hence, the wife of the deceased along with her minor son filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.30,27,905.60 as compensation.
3. Resisting the claim petition, the Transport Corporation has filed a counter affidavit denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased Asokan. It was also stated that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident and therefore, the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the claim, on the side of the claimant, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1, besides examining one Dakshinamoorthy as P.W.2 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.15. On the side of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.
5. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,45,200/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as against the claim of 30,27,905.60. The break up details of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, are as follows:-
Loss of income : Rs. 17,92,128/-
Loss of consortium : Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of love and affection : Rs. 30,000/-
For funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/-
For transport charges : Rs. 3,000/-
Total : Rs. 18,45,128/- Rounded of Rs. 18,45,200/-
Aggrieved over the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation.
6. Since this appeal has been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, we are not dealing with the other aspects of the award.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation has submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased Muniappan was working as Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. After his demise, his wife, the first respondent herein is receiving the pension amount. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have deducted the pension amount that the first respondent is receiving every month. Further, learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that the first respondent has also got a job on compassionate grounds and she is receiving wages from the said job. Therefore, the monthly wages that the claimant is presently receiving from the said job is liable to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased. Further, he has submitted that no amount was deducted towards income tax. He has also submitted that while adopting the multiplier method, the Tribunal has applied the higher multiplier of 16, which resulted in awarding an exorbitant amount as compensation. Hence, by adopting the lesser multiplier, the compensation amount has to be reduced.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/ first respondent herein submitted that at the time of death, the deceased was working as Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board an
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
