1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.07.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.667 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 The Branch Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 37, Krishna Rao Tank Street, Madurai. .. Appellant/Respondent 2 Vs. 1.Muthulakshmi .. 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.Ramachandran 3.Lakshmi .. 2nd & 3rd Respondents/ Respondents 1 & 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 06.01.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Aruppukkottai and allow this appeal. For Appellant .. Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For Respondent .. Mr.I.Suthakaran No.1 For Respondents .. No appearance No.2 and 3 JUDGMENT The impugned award dated 06.01.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Aruppukkottai is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents 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 stated in the petition that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased viz., Madurai Veeran and he served as mason and thereby earned Rs.10,000/- per mensum. On 10.08.2009 at about 12.30 p.m., the petitioner and deceased have walked on the road in front of Nadar Uravinmurai Building and at that time the lorry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 belonging to the first respondent has been driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and due to accident, the deceased has sustained multiple injuries. The lorry which caused the accident has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation as mentioned in the petition. 4. It is stated in the counter filed on the side of the first respondent that no accident has happened as alleged in the petition and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is averred that the accident has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. The driver of the first respondent has not possessed of valid driving license and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the counter filed on the side of the third respondent it is stated that the petitioner is not a first class heir. In other aspects, the averments made in the petition are admitted. 7. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,35,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2. With regard to quantum of compensation, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has not touched the factum and manner of accident and his contention is only with regard to quantum of compensation. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has contended that in the Post-Mortem Report, it has been specifically stated that the deceased would have attained the age of 45, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously adopted 15 multiplier and further the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously fixed Rs.5000/- per mensum, even though no specific document has been marked and under the said circumstances, the award in question is liable to be modified. 10. As stated supra, as rightly pointed out on the side of the appellant/second respondent in the Post-Mortem Report, it has been clearly stated that the deceased would have attained the age of 45. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed 15 multiplier. As per the decision in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009)4 MLJ 997 (SC), the proper multiplier in the instant case is only 14. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.5,000/- per mensum as income of the deceased. As per the aforesaid decision, even no document is filed, the proper monthly income is Rs.4,500/-. After making one-third deduction, it comes to Rs.3,000/- and yearly income comes to Rs.36,000/-. It has already been pointed out that proper multiplier in the present case is only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 14 and in that way it comes to Rs.5,04,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same have not been touched on the side of the appellant/second respondent and therefore the amounts given as consortium and funeral expenses can be accepted. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that the third respondent is the mother of the deceased and she has not been given anything towards love and affection. Under the said circumstances, Rs.10,000/- can be awarded towards love and affection and in aggregation, the petitioner as well as third respondent are entitled to get Rs.5,49,000/-. 12. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Aruppukkottai is modified as follows: The petitioner and third respondent are entitled to get Rs.5,49,000/- by way of compensation. The petitioner is entitled to get Rs.3,19,000/- and the third respondent is entitled to get Rs.2,30,000/-. In other aspect, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge,, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Aruppukkottai. +1 CC to Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate (SR.No.23441) +1 CC to Mr.I.Suthakaran, Advocate (SR.No.23407) C.M.A(MD)No.667 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 18.07.2011 smn NSV/8.8.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/