Pushpam Alias Pushpa v. M.Rajendran S/O Mani

J U D G M E N T The sole appellant herein who is the mother of the deceased Shan mugasundara m has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous appeal against the Judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.88 of 2016, dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims cases, Erode for enhance ment of co mpensation.

¶2The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, by the appellant / claimant claiming compensation of Rs.30 lakhs on the death of her son Shan mugasundara m in the road accident that had taken place on 02.04.2016.

¶3The learned counsel for the appellant / claimant would contend that the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is on lower side, though monthly income details were established by exa mining P.W.3 who is the Director of the Elbrit Life Sciences (P) Ltd., where the deceased was working at the relevant point of time. According to the petitioner, while deciding income of deceased, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is incorrect. The learned counsel would further contend that while calculating the monthly income of the deceased, future prospects was not added. It was further argued that no a mount was awarded under the head - 'pain and sufferings' and 'for loss of estate'.

¶4Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Co mpany would vehe mently contend that the Tribunal after taking into consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, had passed the award for a su m of Rs.9,50,000/ - with interest at 7.5% per annu m from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. It is well considered order which needs no interference by this Court.

¶5Rival submissions of both side learned counsels are duly considered and perused the m aterials available on record.

¶6The m anner in which the accident had occurred is not in dispute. Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate the averments m ade in the claim petition, P.W.1 to P.W.3 have been exa mined and Exs.P1 to P19 were m arked on the claimant side. The respondents neither exa mined any witness nor produced any docu ments in support of their defence.

¶7As per the evidence of P.W.1, at the time of accident, the claimant's son was aged about 32 years and he was working as a driver cu m packer at Elbrit Life Science (P) Limited, Erode and he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ - per month. To prove the income details of the deceased, the Director of the said co mpany one Senthilkumar has been exa mined as P.W.3. Further it is evident that as per Ex.P15, the deceased was appointed as a driver cu m packer in the said company with effect from 02.01.2014 for a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/ - per month. He has also filed CST form B certificate of Registration of the said Co mpany (Ex.P17). Though Exs.P15 and P19 have been m arked through P.W.3, the Tribunal has not relied upon the sa me for want of acquittance and attendance Registrar being m aintained in the said company in order to prove the factum that the deceased was e mployed in the said company. However, taking into consideration of the above said details it is reasonable to fix the salary of the deceased as Rs.10,000/ - .

¶8Insofar as the age of the deceased, Exs.P11 and P12 (driving licence and transfer certificate of the deceased) have been produced to state that the date of birth of the deceased is 17.05.1984. The Tribunal, based on the above said documents, fixed the age as 32 years at the relevant point of time, is correct. The corresponding m ultiplier is 16. However for the age group between 31 to 35 years, the Tribunal has to follow the law laid down in S a r a l a Ve rma & O r s . V r s . De l h i T r an s p o r t C o r p o r a t i o n & An r . reported in 2 0 0 9 ( 2 ) TNMA C 1 ( S C ) 16. In the said Judgment which is mentioned supra, the details of the deductions in respect of personal expenses have been given. As per the above Judgment, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses for the deceased who happens to be bachelor who is having a widowed mother. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the same Judgment about the addition of future prospects while calculating the income of the deceased.

¶9Addition of Future Prospects is dealt with by the Hon'ble Supeme Court in Na t i o na l I n s u r an c e C o . L t d V r s . P r ana y S e t h i and o r s . reported in 2 0 1 7 ( 2 ) TNMA C 6 0 9 ( S C ) , it has been held that in the case of persons who are aged below 40 years who were e mployed should be given an addition of 40 % as future prospects while calculating their income. Based on the aforesaid observations the following formula emerges for fixing the income of the deceased: Monthly Income Rs.10,000/ -+ Rs.4000/ -(40%) = Rs.14,000/ -Deduction of Personal expenses = 50% Rs.14,000/ --Rs.7000 (50%) = Rs.7000/ -Annual Income Rs.7000/ -x 12 x 16 (Multiplier) = Rs.13,44,000/ -

¶10Therefore, the a mount awarded under the head loss of earnings is enhanced from Rs.7,65,000/ - to Rs.13,44,000/ - . Insofar as the sum of Rs.10,000/ - awarded towards transport to hospital, a sum of Rs.25,000/ - awarded towards Funeral expenses and a sum or Rs.1,50,000/ - awarded towards loss of love and affection, in the opinion of this Court is just and reasonable and the same do not warrant any interference. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any a mount towards loss of estate. Therefore, a su m of Rs.25,000/ - is hereby granted towards loss of estate. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: S . N o De s C r i ? 1 i o n Amoun 1 Amoun 1 Awar d awa r d ed b y awa r d e d by C on f i rmed o r T r i b un a 1 1 h i s C ou r 1 enh an C e d o r ( R s ) ( R s ) g r an 1 e d

¶1Loss of earning 7,65,000 13,44,000 enhanced

¶2Transport to 10,000 10,000 confirmed Hospital

¶3Funeral 25,000 25,000 confirmed expenses

¶4Loss of love and 1,50,000 1,50,000 confirmed affection

¶5Loss of Estate Nil 25,000 granted Total 9,50,000 1 5 , 5 4 , 0 0 0 E nh an C ed by R s . 6 , 0 4 , 0 0 0 / -

¶11In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.9,50,000/ - is hereby enhanced to R s . 1 5 , 5 4 , 0 0 0 / - ( R u? e e s F i f 1 e e n 1 a k h s F i f 1 y f o u r 1 h ou s an d on 1 y ) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annu m from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant is directed to pay the Court fee, if any on the enhanced a mount of ndcompensation. The 2 respondent/Insurance Co mpany is directed to deposit the enhanced award a mount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the a mount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the a mount deposited on filing proper application. No costs. 2 1 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 vum Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order To

¶1The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge) Erode.

¶2The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai. R . KA LA IMATH I , J . vum CMA No . 2 1 3 1 o f 2 0 1 9 CMA No.2131 of 2019 2 1 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:21.04.2023 CORAM: TH E HONOURAB L E MRS . J U S T I C E R . KA LA IMATH I CMA No . 2 1 3 1 o f 2 0 1 9 Pushpa m alias Pushpa ... Appellant Vs 1. M.Rajendran 2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Micro Office at Shanmuga Co mplex, 1 - 15 - 24H New Edapadi Road, Sankari, Salem 一 637 301. ... Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 25.07.2017 in MCOP No.88 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge) Erode. For Appellant : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondents : No appearance