IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.11.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

CMA.No.2322 of 2015

M/s.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

136, MBT Road, Navalpur, Ranipet, Vellore District.

.. Appellant/R2

Vs.

Kannammal (died)

1.Govindammal

2.Sakuntala

3.Dhakshinamoorthy

4.Ramalingam

5.Thulasi

6.S.Kavitha

.. Respondents 1 to 6/P2 to P6 & R1

(R6 has been set ex-parte. Hence,

notice is dispensed with)

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section

173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree

dated 22.04.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2012 on the file of

the Additional District Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal), Ranipet.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Udaya Sankar

For R1 to R5

: Ms.M.R.Sakundala

for M/s.T.P.Prabhakaran

For R6

: Exparte

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the

award and decree dated 22.04.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2012

on the file of the Additional District Judge, (Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal), Ranipet.

2.The appellant-Insurance Company is the 2^nd respondent in

M.C.O.P.No.250 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District

Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Ranipet. One Kannammal

(deceased) and the respondents 1 to 5 filed the above claim

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the

death of one Kuppan, son of Kannammal and brother of the

respondents 1 to 5, who died in an accident that took place on

14.09.2011.

3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle

belonging to the 6^th respondent herein and awarded a sum of

Rs.2,84,200/- as compensation, directing the 6^th respondent and

the appellant to pay the same jointly and severally to the

respondents 1 to 5.

4.Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company has come out with

the present appeal.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended

that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the

deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, without there being any

documentary proof. The deceased was a bachelor and the Tribunal

ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses, instead of

1/3^rd. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are

also excessive. The respondents 1 to 5 are not entitled to claim

compensation for the loss of love and affection.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5

contended that the deceased was a coolie, earning Rs.5,000/- per

month. The Tribunal erred in fixing only Rs.4,000/- per month as

notional income and amounts awarded by the Tribunal under

different heads are not excessive and prayed for dismissal of

the appeal.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the

respondents 1 to 5 and perused the materials available on record.

8.From the materials available on record, it is seen that

the respondents 1 to 5 have stated that the deceased was a

coolie earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The appellant has not let

in any evidence to disprove the contention of the respondents 1

to 5 that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In the

absence of any evidence with regard to income, the Tribunal

fixed Rs.4,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased

and the same is reasonable. The appellant's contention that the

deceased was mentally ill and was not taken care by the

respondents 1 to 5 and hence, they are not entitled to any

compensation, is not supported by any acceptable evidence. The

appellant failed to prove that the deceased was mentally ill

person. The contention of the appellant that the deceased was a

bachelor and 50% of notional income ought to have been deducted