1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.201 of 2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd through its Divisional Manager Shoba Complex opposite to Town Railway Station Road Palakkad – 678 401 Kerala State. .. Appellant/2nd respondent Vs. 1.Vasanthi 2.Minor Murugeswari 3.Minor Karuppusamy 4.Palanivel 5.Vellaimmal [Minor 2 & 3 respondents rep. through their mother and natural guardian the 1st respondent vasanthi] .. Respondents 1 to 5/ Petitioners 1 to 5 6.Thirumalaisamy .. 6th Respondent/1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the order dated 12.11.2010 passed in MCOP No.820 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Dindigul. For Appellant : Mr.K.Bhaskaran For RR – 1 to 5 : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi For R – 6 : Mr.A.Saravanan JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the award dated 12.11.2010 passed in MCOP No.820 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Dindigul. 2. The respondents 1 to 5 herein as petitioners have filed MCOP No.820 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Dindigul praying to pass an award of Rs.10,00,000/-, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. It is averred in the petition that on 23.09.2009 at about 12.00 noon the deceased Kalimuthu has travelled in the auto bearing Registration No.TN-65-B-3278 on Kannivadi – Reddiyarchatram main road. At https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 that time the vehicle of the first respondent bearing Registration No.TN- 57 – B – 9961 has been driven in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident. Due to accident, the said Kalimuthu has sustained fatal injuries and subsequently he has been taken to Government hospital, Dindigul and thereafter he has been referred to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai, where he succumbed to injuries on 26.09.2009. The vehicle which caused accident has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is averred that the vehicle which caused accident has not possessed of fitness certificate and the same has not been insured with the second respondent and therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Under the said circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,98,000/- by way of compensation. Against the quantum as well as liability, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the second respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has fairly conceded that the vehicle which caused accident has been insured with the second respondent and therefore, the main attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent need not be decided. 7. The residual attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent is that the the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/4 instead of 1/3 and therefore, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified. 8. As pointed out earlier, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per mensem. Out of Rs.3,000/-, 1/3 must be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. In that way, it comes to Rs.2,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given '14' multiplier as per decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarala Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another). 9. It has already been pointed out that monthly income of the deceased after deducting 1/3, comes to Rs.2,000/- and in that way yearly income comes to Rs.24,000/-. By way of adopting '14' multiplier, it comes to Rs.3,36,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. With regard to quantum given in respect of love and affection and funeral expenses, no attack has been made on the side of the appellant/second respondent and therefore, in aggregation the respondents 1 to 5/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.3,56,000/-. Since the respondents 1 to 5/petitioners are entitled to get Rs.3,56,000/-, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 10. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without cost and the award passed in MCOP No.820 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Dindigul is modified as follows: The respondents 1 to 5/petitioners are entitled to get compensation of Rs.3,56,000/- (Three lakhs and fifty six thousand only). In other aspects, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Dindigul is confirmed. mj Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AS] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Judge, Dindigul. +1 cc to Mr.A.Saravanan, Advocate SR.No.22166. C.M.A(MD)No.201 of 2011 Dated:07.07.2011 3P/3C RPB 01.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/