Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1427
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
Jeeva @ Sujatha & Others – Appellants
Versus
Saraswathy & Another – Respondents
CMA (MD) Nos. 109 & 110 of 2013
Decided On : 24-03-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Selvakumaran, Advocate
For the Respondents:M. Sankar, Advocate, R2, No appearance
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for loss of income, consortium, love and affection, and funeral expenses in motor accident claims.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - MACT - Loss of income, love and affection, consortium, and funeral expenses - M. Sengabagam vs. V.Vinod Kumar, 2013 (2) TN MAC 450 (DB), Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), Best v. Samuel Fox (1952) AC 716, Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others (2013 (3) CTC 883), Maheswari vs M/S. Supreme India Roadlines (CMA.No.395 of 2009, decided on 21.10.2013)
Fact of the Case:
Two claim petitions were filed for enhancement of compensation after an accident resulting in the death of the rider and pillion on a motor cycle. The Tribunal awarded compensation, but the claimants were not satisfied and filed appeals for enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the submissions of the appellants and made adjustments to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, taking into account the deceased's income, personal expenses, loss of consortium, love and affection, and funeral expenses.
Issues: The main issues were the determination of the deceased's income, deduction for personal expenses, and the award for loss of consortium, love and affection, and funeral expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions and precedents to determine the deceased's income, deduction for personal expenses, and the award for loss of consortium, love and affection, and funeral expenses.
Final Decision: The court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, enhancing the amount for loss of income, consortium, love and affection, and funeral expenses in both appeals.
1. Arising out of an accident, two claim petitions were filed and the Tribunal passed the common award. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed these appeals for enhancement of compensation. Since the issue in both the appeals is common, both the appeals are heard together and a common judgment is passed.
2. That on 06.10.2011 one Velkumar rode a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-72-AB-7157 seating one Veerapandiaraja as pillion. While they were proceeding on Tiruchendur-Kanyakumari Beach road, a Omni Van bearing registration No.TN-38-AZ-5523 owned by the 1st respondent insured with the second respondent insurance company hit the motor cycle resulting in the death of both the rider as well as the pillion on the spot. Legal representatives of the rider and pillion filed MCOP.Nos.1339 and 1341 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (IV Additional District Court), Tirunelveli, and the Tribunal by a common judgment dated 13.08.2012, awarded compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- and Rs.5,75,000/- respectively, with interest @ 8% per annum under the following heads:-
CMA (MD)No.109 of 2013
| Loss of income | Rs.5,80,000/- |
| Loss of love and affection & loss of consortium | Rs. 50,000/- |
| Funeral expenses | Rs. 10,000/- |
| Total | Rs.6,40,000/- |
CMA (MD)No.110 of 2013
| Loss of income | Rs. 5,15,000/- |
| Loss of love and affection & loss of consortium | Rs. 50,000/- |
| Funeral expenses | Rs. 10,000/- |
| Total | Rs.5,75,000/- |
3. The learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased in both the cases at Rs.4,000/-, when the claimants claimed that the deceased in both the cases as Driver and Grocery & Fancy Shop owner respectively, earned Rs.15,000/- and Rs.23,000/- per month respectively. Therefore, he submitted that the monthly income of the deceased in both the cases could be fixed at Rs.6,000/-. In support of his contention, he relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M. Sengabagam vs. V.Vinod Kumar, 2013 (2) TN MAC 450 (DB).
4. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased in both the cases. According to him, the deduction should be 1/4th when the number of dependants 4 and 5 respectively. In support of the same, he relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC).
5. He further submitted that at the time of accident, the wife of the deceased in both the cases aged 23 and 32 years respectively and they lost consortium of their husbands at the young age. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded atleast Rs.1,00,000/- each. He also contended that the award towards love and affection in both the cases is meagre and prays for enhancement.
6. I have considered the above submissions.
7. In MCOP.No.1339/11 (CMA.No.109/13), the claimants claimed that the deceased as a driver and also by selling rice, earned Rs.15,000/- per month. However, in the absence of proof, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. Relying on the entry in Ex.P7-Driving Licence of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 30 years. After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying 18' multiplier, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,80,000/- towards loss of income and loss of estate. The actual calculation of loss of income is Rs.5,76,072/- and the Tribunal rounded off the same to Rs.5,80,000/-.
8. In MCOP.No.1341/11 (CMA.No.110/13), the claimants claimed that the deceased by running Grocery and Fancy shop, earned Rs.23,000/- per month. However, in the absence of proof, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the dece
