Madras HC: Claimant is not entitled to get future prospect U/S 163A of Motor vehicle Act

From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the appellants claimed compensation for the death of one Munusamy. When the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A), the Tribunal has to follow structural formula contained in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the Second Schedule, the claimants are entitled to compensation only if the income of the deceased is Rs.40,000/- per annum or less than the same. The claimants have claimed in the claim petition that the deceased was working as a coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month and the Tribunal accepting the same, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, fixed the age as 31 years as per Post Mortem Certificate, applied multiplier 17 and granted compensation as per the Second Schedule. As per structural formula, the appellants are not entitled for any enhancement towards future prospects. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

C.M.A.No.400 of 2020

Sendhiammal  Vs. Ramshuklal

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

DATED: 13.02.2020.

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of

compensation of the award dated 08.03.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.510

of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional

District Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. By consent of both the parties, this appeal is taken up for final

hearing at the admission stage itself.

3.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.510 of 2010 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge,

Krishnagiri. They filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Munusamy, who

died in the accident that took place on 19.03.2004.

4.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving by the first respondent/driver of the lorry, belonging to the

second respondent, insured with the third respondent and directed the

respondents to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.4,88,000/- as

compensation to the appellants.

5.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal,

the appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that

the deceased was working as loading and unloading coolie and was

earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month. The Tribunal fixed only a

meagre sum of Rs.3,300/- per month as notional income of the

deceased. The deceased was aged 29 years at the time of the accident

and the Tribunal has not granted any enhancement towards future

prospects. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads

are also meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation.

7.Per contra, Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the

third respondent-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal, in

the absence of any material evidence to prove the avocation and income

of the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month as notional

income as claimed in the claim petition and the same is not meagre. The

Tribunal after considering the materials available on record, has

awarded compensation, which is not meagre. The appellants have not

made out any case for enhancement of compensation and prayed for

dismissal of the appeal.

8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well

as the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent–Insurance

Company and perused the entire materials on record.

9.From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the appellants claimed compensation for the death of one Munusamy. When the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A), the Tribunal has to follow structural formula contained in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the Second Schedule, the claimants are entitled to compensation only if the income of the deceased is Rs.40,000/- per annum or less than the same. The claimants have claimed in the claim petition that the deceased was working as a coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month and the Tribunal accepting the same, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, fixed the age as 31 years as per Post Mortem Certificate, applied multiplier 17 and granted compensation as per the Second Schedule. As per structural formula, the appellants are not entitled for any enhancement towards future prospects. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The appellants are entitled only for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. In view of the excess amount granted by the Tribunal under conventional heads, the appellants are not entitled to any enhancement.

10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and

sum of Rs.4,88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the appellants, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The respondents are jointly and severally directed to deposit the award amount, along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment

to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.510 of 2010 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri. On such

deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the award amount,

along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already

withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. No

costs.

13.02.2020

Print Page