1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.949 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Kolhapur D.O., Maharastra represented by its Divisional Manager, Fort Station Road, Trichy – 1. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Devi @ Thirupathidevi 2.R.Karthika 3.Minor R.Rajaprabhu (Minor third respondent is represented by his mother and natural guardian viz., first respondent) 4.R.Periayakkal ...Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants 5.Deputy General Manager (Operations), Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., 517/E(Ward) Pune, Bangalore Road, Kolhapur, Maharastra – 416 001. .. 5th Respondent/1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 17.07.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.922 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli. For Appellant .. Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian For Respondents .. Mr.S.Arunjayatram 1 to 3 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the award dated 17.07.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.922 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.922 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.25,70,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. It is averred in the petition that on 09.10.2007 at about 05.00 p.m., the deceased has driven his two wheeler on Tiruchirappalli – Karur Road. At that time, the lorry bearing Registration No.MH-09-A-9629, which belongs to the first respondent has been driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and due to that he sustained fatal injuries. After accident, he has been taken to hospital, where he succumbed to injuries on 10.10.2007. The lorry which caused the accident, has been insured with the second respondent. The deceased has earned Rs.20,000/- per month. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation of Rs.25,70,000/-. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is stated that the accident has not been happened as alleged on the side of the petitioners. The petitioners have exaggerated the monthly income of the deceased and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,00,000/- by way of compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation, 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 contended that the specific contention urged on the side of the petitioners is that the deceased has earned Rs.20,000/- per mensum, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without having any trustworthy evidence has erroneously fixed Rs.8,000/- per mensum and further the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and under the said circumstances, the award in question is liable to be modified. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/petitioners 1 to 3 has contended that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has rightly awarded a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- and the same need not be interfered with. 8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased at 43 and also fixed his monthly income at Rs.8,000/-. After deducting one-third, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed his yearly income at Rs.65,000/-. Considering the fact that after deducting one-third towards his personal expenses, it comes to only Rs.64,000/- and the same should be accepted. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted 13 multiplier and in that way it comes to Rs.8,32,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.20,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Further the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. The amounts fixed towards love and affection, consortium and funeral expenses can be accepted, except the amount fixed towards loss of estate and in aggregation the respondents 1 to 4/ petitioners are entitled to Rs.8,77,000/-. Since the respondents 1 to 4/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.8,77,000/-, the award in question is liable to modified as stated infra. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.922 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli is modified as follows: The respondents 1 to 4/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.8,77,000/- 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 (C.S) To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. + 1 cc to Mr.P.Arunjayatram, Advocate, SR No.27082 C.M.A(MD)No.949 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 10.08.2011 smn RJ/29.8.11 3p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/