1. Tmt.Parvathi 2. Nagalakshmi 3. Minor. Arul Kumar v. 1. Vahwat Computers, No.13, Narasingapuram Street, Rajendran Complex, Shop No.6 & 7, Chennai 600

: Mr.R.Dineshkumar For R2 : Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan JUDGEMENT C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court III, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.749 of 2018, dated 22.02.2023.

2. On 02.11.2017 at about 07.15 p.m., when the deceased was riding a bicycle proceeding opposite to Arul Mighu Prasanna Vinayagar Koil Street, Kilpauk Garden Road, Chennai, at that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN- 01-AZ-8457 proceeding from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body and died. Hence, the appellants, being wife, son and daughter of the deceased, filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation.

3. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,40,000/- towards compensation to the appellants. Being not satisfied with the same, the appellants have filed the present appeal. C.M.A.No.669 of 2024

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 47 years, was working as Cooking master and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, the PW1 also stated in her evidence that the deceased was drawing a monthly income at Rs.20,000/-. However, without considering the same, the Tribunal had fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/-, which appears to be low. Hence, the learned counsel requested this Court to re- determine the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is just and reasonable. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate enhancement in favour of the appellants.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit, that on relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Andal vs. Avinav Kannan and another reported in 2019 (1) TNMAC 54, (Madras), based on the Cost of Living Index, the notional income of the deceased would comes around Rs.13,705/-. Hence, he requested this Court to fix the notional income of the deceased as per the decision of Andal's case cited supra.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and perused the materials C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 available on record.

7. The fact and the manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties, as also the liability and the direction to pay the compensation by the second respondent at the first instance and recover the same from the first respondent. Since nobody has challenged the said finding of the Tribunal, the pay and recovery ordered by the Tribunal is confirmed. Therefore, this Court is not dealing with the said aspect.

8. The only grievance of the appellants is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is claimed by the appellants that though the deceased was aged about 47 years, and had earned a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as a Cooking master, without considering the same, the Tribunal had fixed the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.13,000/-, which is on the lower side. In view of the above and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Andal cited supra, this Court is inclined to re-determine the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month, which is just and reasonable. Thus, by fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/-; adding future C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 prospects at 25%, as has been held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, the total income per month is quantified at Rs.17,500/-; deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses of the deceased; and adopting the multiplier of '13' (since the deceased was aged about 47 years), the compensation towards “Loss of Dependency” is calculated as under:- Loss of Income Notional income (Per month) Add: Future Prospects (Rs.14,000 x 25%) (Per month) Less: Personal expenses (1/3rd) (Rs.17,500/- x 1/3) (Per month) Notional income (per annum) (Rs.11,666/- x 12) Multiplier Total Amount in Rs. 14,000 3,500 17,500 5,833 11,666 1,40,000 13 18,20,000/-

9. Consequently, the sum of Rs.16,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of “Loss of Dependency” is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.18,20,000/-.

10. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are concerned, this Court finds the same to be just and proper and is hereby confirmed. C.M.A.No.669 of 2024

11. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants/claimants under various Heads is modified hereunder:- Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (Amount in Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Amount in Rs.) Compensation towards loss of dependency Funeral expenses Loss of Estate Loss of constorium Total 16,90,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- 18,20,000/- (enhanced) 15,000/- 15,000/- 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/- 18,40,000/- 19,70,000/-

12. Consequently, the total compensation amount of Rs.18,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.19,70,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, out of which, first appellant, the wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.11,70,000/- together with proportionate interest; second appellant, the daughter of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- together with proportionate interest; third appellant, the son of the deceased being minor is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. As regards the award amount to be disbursed to the minor claimant, the third appellant is concerned, on deposit of the award amount being made by the second C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 respondent/Insurance Company, Tribunal shall transfer the entire award amount belonging to the minor, in his name, in any of the Nationalized Bank, in a cumulative interest bearing Account till the minor attains majority, or three years whichever is earlier, and thereafter, the Tribunal shall take steps to settle the award amount to the claimant in accordance with law.

13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is partly allowed on the following terms:- (i) The second respondent, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount awarded by this Court along with interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a., and costs before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. (ii) On such deposit being made by the second respondent/Insurance Company, the Tribunal shall transfer the amount directly to the claimants 1 & 2 respective bank accounts through RTGS within a period of three weeks thereon. (iii) The appellants 1 & 2 are entitled to withdraw the entire award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by making necessary C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 application before the Tribunal. iv) It is made clear that the appellants/claimants will not be entitled for any interest for the delay period of 148 days. v) The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the court fee for the enhanced compensation, if any. vi) There shall be no order as to costs.

25.03.2024 : : Yes / No Yes / No Index NCC To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court III, Chennai.

2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 Krishnan Ramasamy,J., C.M.A.No.669 of 2024

25.03.2024

: Mr.R.Dineshkumar For R2 : Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan JUDGEMENT C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court III, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.749 of 2018, dated 22.02.2023.

2. On 02.11.2017 at about 07.15 p.m., when the deceased was riding a bicycle proceeding opposite to Arul Mighu Prasanna Vinayagar Koil Street, Kilpauk Garden Road, Chennai, at that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN- 01-AZ-8457 proceeding from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body and died. Hence, the appellants, being wife, son and daughter of the deceased, filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation.

3. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,40,000/- towards compensation to the appellants. Being not satisfied with the same, the appellants have filed the present appeal. C.M.A.No.669 of 2024

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 47 years, was working as Cooking master and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, the PW1 also stated in her evidence that the deceased was drawing a monthly income at Rs.20,000/-. However, without considering the same, the Tribunal had fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/-, which appears to be low. Hence, the learned counsel requested this Court to re- determine the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is just and reasonable. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate enhancement in favour of the appellants.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit, that on relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Andal vs. Avinav Kannan and another reported in 2019 (1) TNMAC 54, (Madras), based on the Cost of Living Index, the notional income of the deceased would comes around Rs.13,705/-. Hence, he requested this Court to fix the notional income of the deceased as per the decision of Andal's case cited supra.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and perused the materials C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 available on record.

7. The fact and the manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties, as also the liability and the direction to pay the compensation by the second respondent at the first instance and recover the same from the first respondent. Since nobody has challenged the said finding of the Tribunal, the pay and recovery ordered by the Tribunal is confirmed. Therefore, this Court is not dealing with the said aspect.

8. The only grievance of the appellants is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is claimed by the appellants that though the deceased was aged about 47 years, and had earned a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as a Cooking master, without considering the same, the Tribunal had fixed the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.13,000/-, which is on the lower side. In view of the above and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Andal cited supra, this Court is inclined to re-determine the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month, which is just and reasonable. Thus, by fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/-; adding future C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 prospects at 25%, as has been held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, the total income per month is quantified at Rs.17,500/-; deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses of the deceased; and adopting the multiplier of '13' (since the deceased was aged about 47 years), the compensation towards “Loss of Dependency” is calculated as under:- Loss of Income Notional income (Per month) Add: Future Prospects (Rs.14,000 x 25%) (Per month) Less: Personal expenses (1/3rd) (Rs.17,500/- x 1/3) (Per month) Notional income (per annum) (Rs.11,666/- x 12) Multiplier Total Amount in Rs. 14,000 3,500 17,500 5,833 11,666 1,40,000 13 18,20,000/-

9. Consequently, the sum of Rs.16,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of “Loss of Dependency” is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.18,20,000/-.

10. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are concerned, this Court finds the same to be just and proper and is hereby confirmed. C.M.A.No.669 of 2024

11. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants/claimants under various Heads is modified hereunder:- Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (Amount in Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Amount in Rs.) Compensation towards loss of dependency Funeral expenses Loss of Estate Loss of constorium Total 16,90,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- 18,20,000/- (enhanced) 15,000/- 15,000/- 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/- 18,40,000/- 19,70,000/-

12. Consequently, the total compensation amount of Rs.18,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.19,70,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, out of which, first appellant, the wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.11,70,000/- together with proportionate interest; second appellant, the daughter of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- together with proportionate interest; third appellant, the son of the deceased being minor is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. As regards the award amount to be disbursed to the minor claimant, the third appellant is concerned, on deposit of the award amount being made by the second C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 respondent/Insurance Company, Tribunal shall transfer the entire award amount belonging to the minor, in his name, in any of the Nationalized Bank, in a cumulative interest bearing Account till the minor attains majority, or three years whichever is earlier, and thereafter, the Tribunal shall take steps to settle the award amount to the claimant in accordance with law.

13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is partly allowed on the following terms:- (i) The second respondent, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount awarded by this Court along with interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a., and costs before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. (ii) On such deposit being made by the second respondent/Insurance Company, the Tribunal shall transfer the amount directly to the claimants 1 & 2 respective bank accounts through RTGS within a period of three weeks thereon. (iii) The appellants 1 & 2 are entitled to withdraw the entire award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by making necessary C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 application before the Tribunal. iv) It is made clear that the appellants/claimants will not be entitled for any interest for the delay period of 148 days. v) The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the court fee for the enhanced compensation, if any. vi) There shall be no order as to costs.

25.03.2024 : : Yes / No Yes / No Index NCC To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court III, Chennai.

2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. C.M.A.No.669 of 2024 Krishnan Ramasamy,J., C.M.A.No.669 of 2024

25.03.2024