Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
Samraj & Co. & Others – Appellant
Versus
C. Marimuthu & Others – Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 3923 of 2004 & 328 of 2006
Decided On : 16-10-2020
For the Appellants : N. Rosi Naidu, Advpcate.
For the Respondents:V.S. Gurusamy, P.P. Shanmugasundaram, J. Chandran, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the notional income of the deceased and future prospects, as well as the liability of Insurance Companies to pay the compensation to the claimants.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Calculation - 173 - 173(1)(a), 173(1)(b), 173(1)(c), 173(1)(d), 173(1)(e), 173(1)(f), 173(1)(g), 173(1)(h), 173(1)(i), 173(1)(j), 173(1)(k), 173(1)(l), 173(1)(m), 173(1)(n), 173(1)(o), 173(1)(p), 173(1)(q), 173(1)(r), 173(1)(s), 173(1)(t), 173(1)(u), 173(1)(v), 173(1)(w), 173(1)(x), 173(1)(y), 173(1)(z), 173(2) - The court discussed the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically focusing on the notional income of the deceased and the future prospects. The court referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others and Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another to determine the total income for computation of the compensation. The court re-quantified the compensation payable to the claimants based on the evidence and legal provisions, ultimately directing the Insurance Companies to deposit the determined compensation amount.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and Judgment made in M.C.O.P.No.452 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional District Court, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. The appeals were filed by two Insurance Companies and respective owners of the insured vehicles, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The deceased was involved in a fatal accident, and the question addressed in the appeals was whether the Tribunal was correct in considering the notional income of the deceased for the purpose of awarding compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's consideration of the notional income of the deceased was slightly on the higher side and re-quantified the compensation based on the evidence and legal provisions. The court also directed the distribution of the compensation and the payment process, holding the Insurance Companies liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The main issue addressed in the judgment was the correctness of the Tribunal's consideration of the notional income of the deceased for the purpose of awarding compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence presented, including the testimony of the Processing Manager and the Salary Certificate of the deceased, as well as the legal provisions and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases. The court re-quantified the compensation and directed the Insurance Companies to deposit the determined amount for payment to the claimants.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were partly allowed, and the Insurance Companies were directed to deposit the re-quantified compensation amount for payment to the claimants.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and Judgment dated 07.10.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.452 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court No. 5) Coimbatore at Tiruppur.)
(Through Video Conferencing)
Common Judgment:
1. By this common Judgment, both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being disposed.
2. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the two Insurance Companies along with respective owners of the insured vehicles. United India Insurance Company Limited and the owner of the insured mini lorry are appellants in C.M.A.No.3923 of 2004. The New India Assurance Company Limited and the owner of the insured bus are the appellants in C.M.A.No.328 of 2006.
| Heads and Calculation | Amount |
| Loss of Income to the claimants due to the death of deceased Ravichandran | Rs.10,88,000/- |
| Loss of love to the 1st and 2nd claimants | Rs. 10,000/- |
| Loss of love and consortium to the 3rd claimant | Rs. 15,000/- |
| Loss of love 4th claimant | Rs. 10,000/- |
| Funeral Expenses | Rs. 2,000/- |
| Total | Rs.11,25,000/- |
3. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 07.10.2003 passed by the Motor C.M.A.Nos.3923 of 2004 & 328 of 2006 Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.5), Coimbatore at Tirupur in M.C.O.P.No.452 of 1995.
4. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,25,000/- to the 1st to 4th respondents and fixed the liability on the respective appellants (i.e., respective owner of the insured vehicles and the respective Insurance Companies) equally. Details of Compensation are as follows:-
5. In these appeals, the respective Insurance Companies have questioned the quantum of compensation awarded to the 1st to 4th respondents who had filed M.C.O.P.No.452 of 1995.
6. These cases pertain to the accident between the lorry of the 1st appellant insured with the 2nd appellant Insurance Company in C.M.A.No.3923 of 2004 with the bus belonging to the 1st appellant insured with the 2nd appellant Insurance Company in C.M.A.No.328 of 2006.
7. The case of the appellants in these appeals is that the Tribunal erred in awarding the aforesaid compensation to the 1st to 4th respondents/claimants by considering a notional income of the deceased Ravichandran together with future prospects as Rs.8,000/- per month though the deceased was merely an Electrician and the notional income of the deceased could not have been more than Rs.3,000/- per month on the date of accident on 02.03.1995.
8. It is further submitted that in a connected case involving the death of another passenger who also travelled in the same bus, the monthly income has been considered as Rs.3,000/-. In this connection, a reference was made to order in the connected case of the other claimants/legal representatives of the deceased passenger.
9. Reference was also made to another order passed by a learned Single of this Court in C.M.A.No.3945 of 2004, wherein, this Court has taken the notional income of the deceased in M.C.O.P.No.474 of 1995 arising out of the same accident as Rs.3,000/- while re-quantifying the compensation.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st to 4th respondents/claimants vehemently opposed these appeals and stated that the deceased Ravichandran was a permanent employee of the M/s.SCM International Textiles Processing 100% EOU and therefore, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of his death based on the evidence of P.W.14 Processing Manager of S.M.C.Textile Processing Company, as per which, the deceased Ravichandran was working as Electrician and based on Ex.P.37 Salary Certificate of t
