w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


N. Santhi & Others v/s The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai

    C.M.A(MD). No. 1053 of 2021
    Decided On, 06 April 2022
    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
    For the Appellants: T. Lenin Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: P.M. Vishnuvarthanan, Advocate.


Judgment Text
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.11 of 2019, dated 12.04.2019, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Principal District Court),Trichy.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.11 of 2019, dated 12.04.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Principal District Court),Trichy.

2. The claim Petitioners are the appellants before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.11 of 2009.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The factum of the accident, manner of the accident and the rash and negligence on the part of the offending vehicle are not disputed and hence, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the same are confirmed.

5. On the point of quantum of compensation, both the parties are heard.

6. In order to substantiate the plea that the injured is about 52 years,Ex.P2-Post mortem Certificate was marked and the same was accepted. My attention was drawn to Ex.P7-driving licence of the deceased Nandhi Perumal and Ex.P8-Registration Certificate of the deceased Nandhi Perumal of the lorry and Ex.P9-copy of the goods carriage permit of the deceased person to show that the deceased is the owner-cum-driver of the lorry which met with an accident, wherein, P.W.2 went as an Attendar, taking into consideration that he is having valid driving licence to drove HMV vehcile and also owning lorry, the notional income can be accordingly, fixed at Rs.15,000/-p.m. Since the deceased is aged 53 years at the time of accident, as per Pranay Sethi's case, the future prospects should be taken as 10% which comes to Rs.15,000 + Rs.1,500 = Rs.16,500/-. As per Sarla Verma's case, proper multiplier to be adopted for the age group of 53 is '11'.Therefore the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.16,500/- x 12x11=21,78,000/-.The first Petitioner being the wife, is entitled to loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- and other three claimants being son and daughters of the deceased Nandhi Perumal, are each entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium, totally Rs.1,20,000/-.Further, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards transportation, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In total, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.23,83,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,72,000/-to Rs.23,83,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% pa., from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The respondent/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified enhanced award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs,less the award amount, if any already deposited, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a co

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
py of this order. On such deposit being made, all the claimants 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their share in the award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs,as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal, less the award amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs.
O R