1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.918 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kumbakonam. .. Appellant Vs. 1.Kasthoori 2.S.Sasikala 3.S.Bharathy 4.S.Kalyanasundaram 5.G.Sundar .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 29.04.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.13 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam. For Appellant .. Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For Respondents .. Mr.M.Subash Babu 1 to 4 For Respondent .. Mr.V.Venkataseshan No.5 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 29.04.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.13 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein as petitioner have filed M.C.O.P.No.13 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. It is averred in the petition that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased viz., Shanmugam. The remaining petitioners are the children of the first respondent and deceased. The deceased has done his business in vending vegetables and thereby earned Rs.15,000/- per mensum. On 15.12.2003, at about 06.30 p.m., the deceased has driven his bicycle at Thirunageswaram on the extreme left side of the road. At that time, the driver of the first respondent has driven the tractor bearing Registration No.TN-49-Z-9097 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to accident, the deceased has sustained multiple fatal injuries, which resulted his death. The vehicle, which caused the accident has been insured with the second respondent. Under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation as mentioned therein. 4. It is averred in the counter filed on the side of the second respondent that it is false to contend that the deceased has run a vegetable business. It is also equally false to contend that the driver of the first respondent has caused the accident due to his alleged rash and negligent driving. The deceased himself has invited the accident and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the rival evidence adduced on either side, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,10,000/- by way of compensation. Against the quantum, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has not touched the factum as well as manner of accident and the only grievance expressed on the side of the appellant/ second respondent is that even though no document has been filed so as to prove the alleged monthly income of the deceased, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously fixed Rs.4,500/- per mensum and under the said circumstances the award in question is liable to be modified. 7. In order to controvert the contention urged on the side of the appellant/second respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/petitioners has also equally contended that the deceased has run vegetable business and thereby he earned Rs.15,000/- per mensum, but however the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.4,500/- per mensum and under the said circumstances, the award in question is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference. 8. On the basis of the divergent submissions made by either counsel, the Court has to look into as to whether the quantum of monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is perfectly correct or the same requires any modification? 9. It is an admitted fact that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased and the remaining petitioners are their children. Therefore it goes without saying that the family of the deceased consists of five members. Of course, it is true that on the side of the petitioners no document has been filed so as to prove the alleged monthly income of the deceased. However the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal considering the family member of the deceased has fixed Rs.4,500/- per mensum. As stated supra, the family of the deceased consists of five members. Since the family of the deceased consists of five members, definitely it requires Rs.4,500/- per mensum and therefore the quantum of monthly income fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is perfectly correct and the same does not require any modification. 10. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed 13 multiplier and there is no grievance on the side of the appellant/second respondent. 11. It has already been pointed out that the Motor Accidents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.4,500/- per mensum as income of the deceased and after making one-third deduction, it comes to Rs.3,000/- and yearly it comes to Rs.36,000/- and by way of giving 13 multiplier, it comes to Rs.4,68,000/-. 12. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given Rs.40,000/- towards love and affection. Considering the fact that the monthly income of the deceased has been fixed at Rs.4,500/-, this Court is of the view that Rs.20,000/- can be given towards love and affection. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same can be accepted and in aggregation the respondents 1 to 4/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.4,90,000/- and to that extent the award in question is liable to be modified. 13. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.13 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam is modified as follows: The respondents 1 to 4/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.4,90,000/- by way of compensation. In other aspect, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Thanjavur at Kumbakonam. + 1 cc to Mr.M.Subash Babu, Advocate, SR No.25602 + 1 cc to Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, Advocate, SR No.25757 + 1 cc to Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate, SR No.25920 C.M.A(MD)No.918 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 02.08.2011 smn RJ/23.8.11 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/