1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.837 and 838 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.837 of 2011: Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., No.45 & 46, Sundaram Towers, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002 through its Branch Manager. .. Appellant/Respondent-2 Vs. 1.Kalimuthu 2.Mookkammal .. Respondents/Petitioners 3.Prapakaran .. Respondent/Respondent-1 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 30.12.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1008 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. For Appellant .. Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For Respondents .. No appearance CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.838 of 2011: The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., No.46, Sundaram Towers, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. .. Appellant/Respondent-2 Vs. 1.Sowkath Ali 2.Subaitha .. Respondents/Petitioners 3.Prapakaran .. Respondent/Respondent-1 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 30.12.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1114 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. For Appellant .. Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For Respondents .. Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy 1 and 2 For Respondent .. No appearance No.3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 COMMON JUDGMENT These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred against the common award dated 30.12.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1008 of 2009 and 1114 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 in each Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.Nos.1008 of 2009 and 1114 of 2009 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to pass awards for the amounts mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant and third respondent have been shown as respondents. 3. On the basis of the available evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1114 of 2009 has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,57,500/- and in M.C.O.P.No.1008 of 2009 has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,08,084/-. With regard to quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.837 of 2011 has contended that the deceased has attained the age of 23 and no document has been filed with regard to his monthly income and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/- on the basis of Ex.P.19, Certificate of Diploma in Teacher Training, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously deducted one-third, even though the deceased has died as a bachelor and further the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of future prospects and under the said circumstances, the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1008 of 2009 is liable to be modified. 5. The respondents 1 to 3 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.837 of 2011 are remained ex-parte. Under the said circumstances, only on the basis of the contention putforth on the side of the appellant/second respondent, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.837 of 2011 is liable to be disposed of. 6. It is seen from the records that the deceased has attained the age of 23 at the time of accident and except Ex.P.19, no document has been filed. Considering the fact that Ex.P.19 is a Certificate for the purpose of showing that the deceased has obtained Diploma in Teacher Training, this Court is of the view that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly fixed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. But the mistake committed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is that it has made one-third deduction, even though the deceased has passed away as a bachelor. Since the deceased has passed away as a bachelor, 50% must be deducted and after deducting 50%, it comes to Rs.3,000/- per mensum and yearly it comes to Rs.36,000/- and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted multiplier 15 and by way of adopting multiplier 15, it comes to Rs.5,40,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same can be accepted. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given Rs.2,500/- towards loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 estate and Rs.1,00,000/- towards future prospects. Considering the fact that in the instant case, no reliable document has been filed so as to prove that on the date of accident, the deceased has served, this Court is of the view that no amount can be given towards loss of future prospects and further the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously granted Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not given anything towards love and affection and this Court is of the view to give Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.52,584/- towards medical expenses and the same can be accepted and in aggregation the respondents 1 and 2/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.6,17,584/- by way of compensation and to that extent the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1008 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.838 of 2011 has contended that the deceased has died as a bachelor and no document has been filed for proving his profession, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.5,000/- as per Ex.P.7 and rightly deducted 50%, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously granted Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of future prospects and since the petitioners have failed to prove that on the date of accident, the deceased has served, the amounts granted under the heads mentioned supra are totally erroneous and therefore the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1114 of 2009 is liable to be modified. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.838 of 2011 has contended that the deceased has served as a crane operator on the date of accident and he has earned Rs.10,000/- per mensum, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously fixed Rs.5,000/- per mensum and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the nature of work of the deceased has given Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of future prospects and therefore the entire awarded passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is perfectly correct and the same need not be interfered with. 9. As pointed out earlier, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% and there is no grievance expressed on the side of the appellant/second respondent. The only grievance expressed on the side of the appellant/second respondent is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of future prospects. In the instant case, even though Ex.P.7, Qualification Certificate has been marked, no document has been filed so as to prove that the deceased has served as a crane operator on the date of accident. Under the said circumstances, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erred in granting Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of future prospects and the same cannot be given. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same can be accepted. Further the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not awarded anything towards love and affection and this Court is of the view to give Rs.20,000/- towards love https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 and affection and after deducting Rs.1,02,500/- granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal towards loss of estate as well as loss of future prospects, from the total amount of compensation of Rs.5,57,500/- it comes to Rs.4,55,000/- and by way of adding Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection, it comes to Rs.4,75,000/- and to that extent the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be allowed. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.837 of 2011: 10. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1008 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli is modified as follows: The respondents 1 and 2/petitioners are entitled to get compensation of Rs.6,17,584/- by way of compensation. In other aspect, the award in question is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.838 of 2011: 11. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1114 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli is modified as follows: The respondents 1 and 2/petitioners are entitled to get compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- by way of compensation. In other aspect, the award in question is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Second Additional District Judge, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli. +2ccs to Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate SR.No.33674 & 33675 +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate SR.No.33938 COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)Nos.837 and 838 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 28.09.2011 smn PA/14.10.2011/4P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/