1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.505 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 1.P.M.Basheer ..1st Appellant/1st Respondent 2.The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Jyothi Supper Bazar, Thodapuzha, Kerala. .. 2nd Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.T.Alagammal 2.T.Angusamy 3.M.Angu Vijayal 4.S.Ellammal 5.M.Krishnaveni 6.M.Lalitha 7.S.Pathmakanna 8.T.Angu Vijayan 9.T.Gopinarayanan ..Respondents 1 to 9/Petitioners 1 to 9 10.Rajamani ..10th Respondent/3rd Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 14.06.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.95 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Thoothukudi. For Appellant .. Mr.K.Bhaskaran For Respondent .. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy No.1 For Respondents .. No appearance 2 to 10 JUDGMENT The award dated 14.06.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.95 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Thoothukudi is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondents 1 to 9 herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.95 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellants and tenth respondent have been shown as respondents. 3. It is stated in the petition that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased and the remaining petitioners are their children. The deceased has run an automobile business and thereby earned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Rs.80,000/- per mensum. The accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the third respondent, who is none other than the driver of the first respondent and the vehicle 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 therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the contesting respondents, it is averred that the accident has not happened as alleged in the petition. However the petitioners have claimed excessive compensation and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,32,500/- by way of compensation. With regard to quantum of liability fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the respondents 1 and 2 as appellants. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents 1 and 2 has contended that the deceased has attained 75 years of age, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously fixed his monthly emoluments at Rs.18,000/- and the same is totally against the documents filed on the side of the petitioners and therefore the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified. 7. On the side of the petitioners, enormous documents have been filed so as to prove that the deceased has run an independent business and thereby earned taxable income. Ex.P.5 is an Income Tax Return, wherein yearly income of the deceased has been mentioned as Rs.1,79,600/- and monthly income comes to Rs.14,966/- and the same can be rounded as Rs.15,000/- per mensum. After deducting one-third towards his personal expenses, it comes to Rs.10,000/- per mensum and yearly it comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted 5 multiplier and in that way it comes to Rs.6,00,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not given any amount towards consortium to the first petitioner and therefore Rs.10,000/- can be awarded towards consortium to the first petitioner and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection. Considering the fact that the petitioners 2 to 9 are the children of the deceased, even though they got married and are living separately, this Court is of the view that the petitioners 2 to 9 are each entitled to get Rs.10,000/- by way of love and affection and in that way it comes to Rs.80,000/- and in aggregation the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.6,90,000/- by way of compensation and to that extent the award in question is liable to be modified. 8. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.95 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Thoothukudi is modified as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 The respondents 1 to 9/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.6,90,000/- by way of compensation. In other aspect, the award in question is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II), Thoothukudi. +1CC TO MR.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, ADVOCATE SR.31296 Smn SR : 13.10.2011 : 3p/3c C.M.A(MD)No.505 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 13.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/