IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.11.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A. No. 3065 of 2009 1. Tmt. Uma Maheswari 2. (Minor). Roja 3. (Minor) Vijay Minor Petitioners 2 and 3 are represented by mother and natural guardian first petitioner 4. Shanmugam .. Appellants/Petitioner Versus 1. Project Manager Project Town Ship Government of India Amai Pakkam Village Tirukalkundram Taluk 2. The United India Insurance Company ltd T.P. Cell Claims Office South India Co-operative Building Chennai – 2 .. Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2008 made in M.C.O.P. No. 60 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. For Appellant : Mr. U.M. Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr. M. Kumarakurubaran for R1 Mr. G. Udayashankar for R2 JUDGMENT The claimants are the appellants. The claimants, who are the wife, children and father of the deceased Raji, are aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.2,02,000/- by the Court below for the death of the deceased Raji in a motor accident that took place on 19.11.2003. 2. According to the claimants, on 19.11.2003 when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the two wheeler driven by its driver cum owner Munusamy, bearing Registration No. TN 21 S 8679, near Anupuram @ Amaipakkam Road Junction, the bus bearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Registration No. TN 25 B 0747 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligentmanner and dashed against the two wheeler. In the impact, the deceased died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident, working as a Building contractor cum Maistry and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, for the death of the deceased, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. 3, The insurance company resisted the claim petition by filing a counter before the court below. 4. The court below, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- as compensation. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants would contend that the claimant was aged 30 years at the time of accident and he left behind the first claimant, his young wife, who was aged 23 years at the time of accident. Further, the second claimant was 4 years at the time of accident and the third claimant was 1 year. Therefore, the love and affection which the claimants have lost from their husband/father respectively cannot be compensated in terms of money. Moreover, it was proved before the Court below, through the evidence of PW1/first claimant that the deceased was working as a Maistry and earning atleast Rs.6,000/-. The Court below without considering the factual aspects taken the yearly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and given 1/3rd deduction to arrive at Rs.10,000/- as the yearly income, which is not only meager but unreasonable. According to the claimants, even in the absence of any proof for income, the court below ought to have taken a sum of Rs.4,000/- as the monthly income and determinedthe compensation amount, but it failed to do so. Further, the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection is very low considering the young age at which the deceased left behind his legal heirs. Furthermore, the court below has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium and therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants seeks for enhancement of the compensation amount. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company/second respondent would contend that the Court below is justified in granting a fair and reasonable compensation, especially when the claimants have failed to produce any evidence to show the proof for income of the deceased. In any event, the appeal, at the instance of the claimants, is devoid of merits and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the material records. The insurance company admits the date, time, manner in which the accident occurred, but only disputes the quantum of compensation. The appeal is at the instance of the claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 8. As far as quantum is concerned, the court below taken the yearly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and given 1/3rd deduction to arrive at Rs.10,000/- as the yearly income on the ground that there is no income proof produced by the claimants. It is well settled law that even in the absence of any income proof, as held in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the various decisions of this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court, a minimum sum of Rs.3,000/- can be taken as monthly earning of the injured/deceased, as the case may be. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. Further, the Court below ought to have given 1/4th deduction by applying the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 SC. Therefore, I hold that the court below is not correct in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4th amount. If 1/4th of the amount is taken, then the monthly income of the deceased can safely be determined at Rs.2,250/-. Applying multiplier '17' considering the age of the deceased being 30, the total amount to be awarded towards loss income to the claimants is (Rs.2,250 X 12 X 17) Rs.4,59,000/-, rounded off to Rs.4,60,000/-. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants, the Court below has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium to the wife. Having regard to the fact that the first claimant/wife lost her husband in the road accident at her young age of 23, I award a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the first claimant towards loss of consortium. 10. The Court below awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection, which I feel is a fair and reasonable compensation and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 11. For funeral expenses, the Court below only granted a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Considering the over all facts and circumstance of the case, I enhance it to Rs.10,000/-. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants/appellants is allowed. No costs. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation amount from Rs.2,02,000/- to Rs.5,30,000/- as mentioned below:- Loss of income : Rs.4,60,000.00 Loss of consortium to wife : Rs. 40,000.00 Loss of love and affection : Rs. 30,000.00 Funeral charges : Rs. 10,000.00 --------------------- Rs.5,30,000.00 --------------------- 13. It is represented that the insurance company has already deposited the amount awarded by the court below. In view of the enhancement of the compensation amount, the insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest as apportioned below:- (i) The wife/first claimant is entitled to Rs.2,30,000.00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) The minor children as well as the father of the deceased are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each. Sd/ Asst.Registrar //True Copy// Sub.Asst.Registrar rsh To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal The Additional Subordinate Judge Chengalpattu. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High court, Madras. 2 cc to Mr. U.M. Ravichandran, Advocate, Sr.No.69641 1 cc to Mr. M. Kumarakurubaran , Advocate, Sr.No.69735 CMA No. 3065 of 2009 ug(co) pmk.13.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/