Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
N. Kirubakaran, J.
Vijayaraja – Appellant
Versus
P. Sekar – Respondent
C.M.A. (MD) No. 112 of 2017
Decided On : 07-02-2017
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appellants/claimants against the award for the death of one wife of the first appellant/first claimant, stated to be earning about viz. a sum in the accident occurred , when she was about to get down from the mini bus belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company, which was started speedily resulting in falling of the deceased and sustaining fatal injuries - Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited determined monthly income of a person, who died in the accident and after deducting 3rd amount towards personal expenses, took a sum as his monthly contribution to the family - First appellant/husband lost his wife and depriving of companionship and love and affection of his wife could not be compensated in terms of money - Held, Appellants/claimants are entitled to a sum along with interest at the rate from date of petition till date of realisation and proportionate costs - Appellants/claimants are directed to submit their Account Details along with the copies of their passbooks to the Tribunal forthwith - On such deposit, Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective share amount of the first appellant/first claimant directly to his Personal Savings Bank Account Number, through RTGS/NEFT system, after getting the Account Details from the first appellant/ first claimant, within a period of two weeks thereafter - Appellants/claimants are directed to pay additional Court Fees, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - Order Accordingly.
N. Kirubakaran, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award of Rs. 3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only) for the death of one Selvarani, the wife of the first appellant/first claimant, aged about 33 years, stated to be earning about Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only), viz. a sum of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) per day, in the accident occurred on 09.12.2005, when she was about to get down from the mini bus belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company, which was started speedily resulting in falling of the deceased and sustaining fatal injuries.
2. Heard Mr. P. Pethu Rajesh, learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants and Mr. A. Elango, learned Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company.
3. The Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW-2 - eyewitness and filing of the F.I.R. - Ex.P.1 against the driver of the mini bus, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini bus and fastened the liability on the second respondent-Insurance Company.
4. With regard to the compensation, the Tribunal took only the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per annum as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stating that there was no proof regarding the income. The procedure adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous, especially, when it relied upon the amount given in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was framed in the year 1988. About 25 years ago, the Second Schedule was framed taking note of the value of the money, inflation and spending power at that time. Much water has flown under the bridge and everything got changed and therefore, it may not be appropriate to rely upon the values given in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. The Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Kalpana, (2007) 3 SCC 538, determined the monthly income of a person, who died in the accident on 07.06.1999, at Rs. 4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) and after deducting 3rd amount towards personal expenses, took a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as his monthly contribution to the family. Whereas in the case on hand, the accident occurred on 09.12.2005 and therefore, this Court, instead of Rs. 4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only), is inclined to determine the monthly income at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).
6. The age of the deceased was 33 years as per Ex.P.2 - postmortem report. When she was hardly 33 years old, there is every likelihood of getting more amount if time passes. Therefore, some amount towards future prospects has to be added and accordingly, 50% is added towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) [Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 2,500/-].
7. The size of the family is 3 and therefore, 3rd amount has to be deducted as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC). After deducting 3rd amount, the monthly contribution of the deceased would be Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) [Rs. 7,500/- - Rs. 2,500/-].
8. As already observed, the age of the deceased was 33 years and the appropriate multiplier is 16 as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC).
9. Accordingly, the loss of income would be Rs. 9,60,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) [Rs. 5,000/- x 12 x 16].
10. The first appellant/husband lost his wife and depriving of companionship and love and affection of his wife could not be compensated in terms of mon
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
