BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. THARANI, J.
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
Meenatchi & Another - Respondent
C.M.A. (MD) No. 910 of 2019
Decided On : 10-08-2022
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 173 - 7, 173 - The court discussed the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically section 173, in determining the compensation for a motor accident claim. The court considered the age of the deceased, the notional income, and the loss of love and affection in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the award made in a motor accident claim petition. The deceased was hit by a bus and the claimants sought compensation. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- as compensation, which was appealed against.
Finding of the Court:
The court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation from Rs.3,42,000/- to Rs.2,25,000/-. It directed the Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation with interest and costs, and permitted the claimants to withdraw their shares as apportioned by the Tribunal.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of compensation for a motor accident claim, including the age of the deceased, notional income, loss of love and affection, and other expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the age of the deceased, notional income, and loss of love and affection in determining the compensation. It also addressed the apportionment of the compensation and the deposit process by the Transport Corporation.
Final Decision: The compensation was reduced to Rs.2,25,000/- and the Transport Corporation was directed to deposit the entire compensation with interest and costs. The claimants were permitted to withdraw their shares as apportioned by the Tribunal.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.842 of 2017, dated 01.07.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal District Court, Dindigul.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, made in M.C.O.P.No.842 of 2017, dated 01.07.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal District Court, Dindigul. Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the claimants in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.
2. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.842 of 2017, is as follows:
On 05.05.2017, at about 4.00 pm., when the deceased - Ushadevi was crossing the road, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-AN-0063 came in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, hit against the deceased. The deceased was aged about 65 years and was working as an Agricultural cooli and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioners are her dependents and they claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent in M.C.O.P.No. 842 of 2017, is as follows:
The manner of accident is denied. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased, who crossed the road, without noticing the traffic. It was the deceased, who fell down and she sustained injuries. The respondent was not responsible for the accident. The petition is to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the petitioners, 2 witnesses were examined and 5 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, 1 witness was examined and no document was marked. The Tribunal after considering both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- as compensation.
5. Against the award, the appellant approached this Court by way of this appeal.
6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribubal has failed to fix the entire negligence on the deceased pedestrian, who was walking near the centre media, in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal is wrong in adopting multiplier 7'. As per the post mortem certificate-Ex.P2 and as per the death certificate – Ex.P3, the age of the deceased is 67 years and multiplier 5' alone is applicable. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal too high. The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses, which are all excessive. The total compensation is excessive.
7. On the side of the respondents / claimants, it is stated that the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 67 years. The Tribunal has awarded only a meagre amount towards compensation and prayed the appeal to be dismissed.
8. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. On verification of the records, it is seen that in the post mortem certificate (Ex.P2) and in the death certificate (Ex.P3), the age of the deceased was mentioned as 67 years. The claimants failed to produce any other documents to prove the age of the deceased. Hence, the age of the deceased is fixed as 67 years.
9. On the side of the respondents / claimants, it is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- as an agricultural cooli. There is no proof regarding the income of the deceased. The tribunal has fixed the monthly income as Rs.6,000/-, which is reasonable. It is stated that there is no class-I heir for the deceased. Hence, 50% of the income is deducted for the own expenses of the deceased. After deducting 50%, the deceased might have contributed Rs.3,000/- to the claimants. For 67 years old person, multiplier applicable is only 5'. Hence, the loss of income is fixed as Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.3,000 X 12 X 5 = Rs.1,80,000/-). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- tow
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically section 173, in determining the compensation for a motor accident claim.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the principles established in the Pranay Sethi's Case to determine compensation for fatal accid....
The main legal point established is the application of Pranay Sethi's case in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court emphasized the need to consider the deceased's educational background and future prospects in determining compensation, and it relied on legal precedents to adjust the compensation amount f....
The Court considered the deceased's qualifications, age, and future prospects to determine the notional income and enhance the compensation accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 173, in determining the compensation for a motor accident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of notional income, future prospects, and multiplier '13' to calculate compensation in motor accident claims.
In motor accident compensation cases, where proof of income is unsubstantiated, the court may fix reasonable notional income based on prevailing judicial precedents for the relevant year, applying fu....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.