{"id":193981,"date":"2009-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-08T00:39:32","modified_gmt":"2016-09-07T19:09:32","slug":"the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 14\/07\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN\n\nC.M.A.(MD).No.56 of 2009\nAnd\nM.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2009\n\nThe Divisional Manager\nThe New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,\n161-A, East Veli Street\nMadurai - 625 001.\t\t \t\t.. Appellant\n\t\t\nVs\n\n1.\tMr.T.Chelladurai\n2.\tTmt.D.Maragadam\n3.\tMinor C.Nivitha Varadhalakshmi\n\tMinor represented by Father &\n\tNatural guardian\t\t\t..Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,  against the\nDecree and Judgement dated 24.07.2008 made in  M.C.O.P.No.1630 of 2006 on the\nfile of  the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Additional District and Sessions\nJudge, FTC No.3), Madurai.\n* * * * *\n\n!For Appellant    ...Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan\n^For Respondents  ...Mr.K.Mahendran\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award
\nof a sum of Rs.5,85,000\/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000\/-  by the
\nrespondents 1 to 3\/claimants.\n<\/p>\n
FACTUAL MATRIX\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  The case of the respondents\/claimants before the Tribunal was that one
\nMr.Ragavendran, a final year B.E., (Automobile Engineering) student, met with an
\naccident on 13.04.2006 and died on the spot due to multiple injuries.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  According to the claimants, the deceased died when he was riding the
\nmotor cycle from the East to West in Melur-Trichy N.H. Main road and the fourth
\nrespondent driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner from West to
\nEast and came to the wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle in the
\nsouthern side of the road and then went off the road and dashed against the
\nTamarind tree in the southern side of the road and thereby the deceased
\nC.Ragavendran thrown out from the motor cycle and died on the way to Hospital.
\nAccording to the claimants, the deceased was a final year  B.E., (Automobile
\nEngineering) student and had a potential of earning more and though, a sum of
\nRs.6,850\/- was calculated as compensation and they restricted their claim to
\nRs.10,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.  The appellant \/Insurance Company contested the claim petition by
\nfiling detailed counter statement and in paragraph 3 of the counter statement,
\nit was pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the
\nfourth respondent.  On the side of the claimant, three witnesses, namely, PW-1
\nto PW-3, were examined and the following documents were marked as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tExhibit P-1\t–\tCertified copy of F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
\tExhibit P-2\t–\tCertified copy of postmortem certificate
\n\tExhibit P-3\t–\tCertified copy of charge sheet
\n\tExhibit P-4\t–\tCertified copy of Judgement passed in
\n\t\t\t\tC.C.No.252 of 2006<\/p>\n
\tExhibit P-5\t–\tLegal heirship certificate issued by Tahsildar,
\n\t\t\t\tMelur<\/p>\n
\tExhibit P-6\t–\tAuthorisation letter issued by MAVMM
\n\t\t\t\tEngineering College, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
\tExhibit P-7\t–\tCertificate issued by MAVMM Engineering
\n\t\t\t\tCollege
\n\tExhibit P-8\t–\tIdentity Card of the deceased Ragavendran<\/p>\n
\t5.  On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no documents
\nwere marked.  One Court witnesses, namely, CW-1 was examined and three documents
\nwere marked as X-1 to X-3 and the same is held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tX-1\t–\tParticulars of driving licence letter given by the Motor
\n\t\t\tVehicle Inspector Gr.I.\n<\/p>\n
\tX-2\t–\tXerox copy extract of driving licence issued to the
\n\t\t\tdeceased compared with the original<\/p>\n
\tX-3\t–\tXerox copy of the office copy of driving licence
\n\t\t\textracted from the licence register.\n<\/p>\n
FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:\n<\/p>\n
\t6.  On appreciation of pleadings and evidence and the exhibits marked
\nbefore it, the Tribunal found that the driver of the fourth respondent was
\nresponsible for the accident. The reasoning were elaborately dealt with  by the
\nTribunal in paragraph 8 of the award.  The Tribunal found that the deceased,
\nRagavendran was holding proper licence to ride the two wheeler based on Exhibit
\nX-1 to X-3.  For coming to the conclusion that the driver of the fourth
\nrespondent alone was responsible for the accident, the Tribunal relied upon the
\ntestimony of PW-1.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.  Apart from that, the Tribunal considered Exhibit P-1- F.I.R.  and
\nExhibit P-3- Charge sheet, filed against the lorry driver and Exhibit P-4- the
\nJudgement passed in C.C.No.252 of 2006, in which, the driver of the fourth
\nrespondent was convicted for the offence of rash and negligent driving.  Based
\non the evidence and the exhibit as stated above, the Tribunal found that the
\nfourth respondent driver was responsible for the accident.\n<\/p>\n
AWARD OF TRIBUNAL:\n<\/p>\n
\t8.  The Tribunal awarded the compensation as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tLoss of Income\t:\tRs.5,40,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tLoss of Love and
\n\taffection for 1st and
\n\t2nd Respondent\t:\tRs.   30,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tLoss of Love and
\n\taffection for the 3rd
\n\tRespondent \t:\tRs.   10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFuneral Expenses:\tRs.    5,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t   ---------\n\t\t\t\tRs.5,85,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t   ---------\n\t\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe aforesaid award is  being challenged before this Court in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
NEGLIGENCE:\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tThere is no challenge by the appellant with regard to the negligence
\npart.  Even otherwise, the tribunal after appreciating the pleading, evidence on
\nrecord correctly found that the driver of the insured vehicle alone was
\nresponsible for the accident and therefore the finding of the tribunal does not
\nwarrant any inference and the same is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
QUANTUM:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10.  As far as the quantum is concerned, the counsel for the
\nappellant attacked the award on three grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
\t1.\tThat the deceased was an Engineering college student and non-earning
\nmember and the Tribunal wrongly fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,500\/- and hence
\nthe finding in this regard has to interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tThe multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the Judgement
\nof the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Lakshmana Iyer case.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tThe Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% from the monthly income of
\nthe deceased towards personal expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  In support of the above submissions, he relied upon the Judgement of
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Sarala Verma and others -Vs- Delhi Transport
\nCorporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009 ACJ 1298.  He also
\nfurther relied upon another Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in
\nSyed Basheer Ahamed and others -Vs- Mohammed Jameel and another reported in
\n(2009) 2 SCC  225.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.  The learned counsel further relied upon another Judgement of the
\nDivision Bench of this Court  TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., -Vs-
\nBalakrishna Ready and five others reported in 2009 (1) TANMAC 205, in the said
\nJudgment for the death of 19 years old Engineering student, this Court fixed at
\nRs.3,000\/- as his monthly income and the same amount should be fixed in this
\ncase also.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.  On the other hand, Mr.K.Mahendran, the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents\/claimants supported the award of the Tribunal contending that the
\ndeceased was 22 years final year B.E., student and he was a bright student and
\nhaving the potential of earning more and the future prospectus are more.  He
\nrelied upon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court passed in National
\nInsurance Co. Ltd., -Vs- T.A.Nicholas and two others reported in 2009 (1) TN MAC\n<\/p>\n
373.  In that case, 22 years old Engineering student suffered grevious injuries
\nin the right leg.  For loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal fixed the notional
\nincome of Rs.10,000\/- per month and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench
\nof this Court.  Relying upon the said Judgement, in fact, the learned counsel
\npleaded for enhancement.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.  Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
INCOME:-\n<\/p>\n
\t15.  It is not in dispute, the deceased was a final year student in
\nAutomobile Engineering.  In fact, the said fact was proved by PW-3 and the
\nletter given by the college Principal, Exhibit-P-6 and Exhibit P-7 and Exhibit
\nP-8.  To arrive at the income, the Tribunal gave its reasoning in paragraph 10
\nof the award and the same is extracted as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t”The deceased Ragavendran being an Engineering college student at the
\ntime of accident he was not earning any income at that time.  But as an
\nEngineering college student he has got the latent ability, talent and potential
\nto earn substantially in future as an Engineering student soon after the
\ncompletion of his course.  Though there is no concrete evidence to prove his
\nmonthly income and though he was not earning at the time of the accident.
\nConsidering that he was studying a professional course and as a would be
\nengineer he would have great prospect to earn substantially, this Tribunal feels
\nthat it would be just and fair compensation if the monthly income of the
\ndeceased is fixed at Rs.4,500\/- p.m.”<\/p>\n
\t16.  The aforesaid reasoning given by the Tribunal would show that the
\nprospects of the deceased could be more in case of his completion of the
\nEngineering course.  However, the Tribunal did not take into the future
\nprospects of the deceased in proper manner.  The future prospects of an Engineer
\nis more compared to other fields.  The Engineers are more in demand in any part
\nof the world.  In this electronic era, the service of the Engineers are more
\nrequired.  In a number of Judgements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this
\nCourt, held that arriving at income, the future prospects of the deceased should
\nbe taken into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.  In Bijoy Kumar  Durga -Vs- Bidya Dhar Dutta and others   reported in
\n(2006) 3 SCC 242, while arriving at loss of income, it was held by the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court that the future prospects has to be considered.  In a recent
\nJudgement passed in  R.K.Mallik and another -Vs- Kiran Pal and another reported
\nin 2009 (8) Scale 451, the Supreme Court while awarding compensation to the
\nparents of the death of school children, held that:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t”It is well settled legal principles that in addition to awarding
\nthe compensation for pecuniary losses, the compensation must also be granted
\nwith regard to the future prospects of the children.  It is incumbent upon the
\nCourt to consider the said aspect while awarding the compensation”.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.  In the aforesaid R.K.Malik’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took
\ninto consideration, the earlier decision passed by the Apex Court passed in
\nGeneral Manager, Kerala, State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum -Vs-
\nSusamma Thomas and others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176, Sarala Dixit (Smt.) and
\nanother -Vs- Balwant Yadav and others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 179, Latha
\nWadhva and others -Vs- State of Bihar and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197
\nand held that the future prospects of the deceased is one of the vital aspects
\nto be considered by the Tribunal, while arriving at the loss of income.  In the
\nsaid case, for the death of school children, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,55,000\/-
\nto the dependents of the children between the age group of 10 to 15 years and
\nRs.1,65,000\/- between 15 to 18 years and Rs.1,30,000\/- to Rs.1,31,000\/- for the
\ndeath of three children below 10 years.  On appeal, the High Court enhanced the
\ncompensation in all cases by Rs.75,000\/-.  On appeal by the claimants, the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs.75,000\/- more as additional
\ncompensation for future prospects of the children. In arriving at the decision,
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, elaborately dealt with the cases
\nalready decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in detail.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.  As far as this case is considered to proper reasoning was given by
\nthe Tribunal to arrive at monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500\/-.  Even in
\nthese days, a coolie is considered to be earning about Rs.3,000\/- to Rs.5,000\/-.
\nThe automobile Engineer’s prospects is more when there are more automobile
\nindustries in this part of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.  The Judgement of the Division Bench of this Court passed in  National
\nInsurance Co. Ltd., -Vs- T.A.Nicholas and two others reported in 2009 (1) TN MAC
\n373, relied on by Mr.K.Mahendran, the learned counsel for the claimant, spoke
\nabout the notional income at Rs.10,000\/- per month by the Tribunal, which was
\nconfirmed in appeal by this Court.  In paragraph 8 of the said Judgement, it has
\nbeen observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t”We now come to the loss of his earning capacity or permanent disability.
\nThere is no evidence for this except the statement of the claimant, PW-1.  But
\nwe do not think that it is an unreasonable figure, considering his
\nqualification.  Therefore, we will accept the figure as fixed by the Tribunal
\ni.e., Rs.10,000\/- per month”.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.  Based on the judgement and considering his position as student
\nstudying final year BE (Automobile Engineer), this Court could fix the monthly
\nincome of the deceased at Rs.10,000\/-.  There was no contra evidence before the
\nTribunal to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimant.  However, in the absence
\nof any appeal by the claimant, such an exorbitant amount need not be fixed.
\nTherefore, this Court fixes the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000\/- per
\nmonth.  This exercise is being done by this Court, considering the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case by invoking Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.  The case relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant TATA AIG
\nGeneral Insurance company Ltd., -Vs- Balakrishna Reddy and others reported in
\n2009 (1) TAN MAC 205 speaks about the death of Engineering college student, aged
\nabout 19 years, wherein, composite negligence on the part of the car driver as
\nwell as the deceased was arrived at and there was no reasoning given for fixing
\nthe monthly income at Rs.3,000\/- and it only confirmed the notional income
\nadopted by the Tribunal.  It is also understood from the Judgement, the no
\nfuture prospects of the deceased was taken into consideration.  The other
\nJudgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, Syed Basheer
\nAhamed and others -Vs- Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 SCC
\n225, wherein a business man died in the accident and his monthly income was
\nfixed at Rs.7,000\/- by the Tribunal and the same was reduced to Rs.4,000\/- based
\nupon the entries in the current bank account of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.  The case on hand is relating to the death of non-earning member,
\nnamely, the final year B.E., (Automobile Engineering) student, whose future
\nprospects are more compared to a business man.  In any event, the prospects of
\nan Engineering student cannot be compared with a business man especially when
\nthere are more automobile industries in India.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.  As stated above, the prospects of the Engineering student is more
\ncompared to any other field  as found by this Court, the monthly income of the
\ndeceased student is fixed at Rs.7,000\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES:\n<\/p>\n
\t25.  The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the Tribunal’s award
\nfor non-deduction of 50% of income towards personal expenses as the deceased was
\nbachelor.  The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued relying upon
\nthe Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Sarala Verma and others –
\nVs- Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298.  In that
\ncase, the deceased was a scientist in Indian Council of Agricultural Research
\n(ICAR) earning a monthly salary of Rs.3,402\/- and other benefits.  While dealing
\nwith deduction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave the following guidelines for
\ndeduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.  The paragraph
\nNo. 14 and 15 of the Judgement are extracted as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t”14.  Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and
\nliving expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok
\nChandra’s case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardized
\ndeductions.  Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we
\nare of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards
\npersonal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1\/3rd ) where
\nthe number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1\/4th ) where the
\nnumber of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (1\/5th ) where the
\nnumber of the dependent family members exceed six.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.  Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents,
\nthe deduction follows a different principle.  In regard to bachelors, normally
\n50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed
\nthat a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself.  Even otherwise, there is
\nalso the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the
\ncontribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.
\nFurther, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his
\nown income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will
\nbe considered as a dependant.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
\nbrothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will
\neither be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father.
\nThus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother
\nwould be considered to be a dependant and 50 per cent would be treated as the
\npersonal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution
\nto the family.  However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on
\nthe income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large
\nnumber of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
\nexpenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be
\ntaken as two-third”.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.  Relying upon the said Judgement, the learned counsel for the
\nappellant contended that the deceased in this case was a bachelor and 50% of the
\nincome should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, whereas the
\nTribunal deducted only 1\/3rd and hence contended that 50% should be deducted.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.  It has been held by a number of Judgements by the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt that 1\/3rd amount only has to be deducted towards personal income whereas
\nonly in  Sarala Verma and others -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and another
\nreported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009 ACJ 1298 and another Judgement in Syed
\nBasheer Ahamed and others -Vs- Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2
\nSCC  225, 50% of the income was ordered to be deducted for the death of the
\nbachelor.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.  In a recent Supreme court Judgement passed in Oriental Insurance
\nCompany Ltd., -Vs- Deo Patodi and others  reported in 2009 (8) Scale 194, it has
\nbeen held that deduction of 1\/3rd towards personal expenses is the ordinary rule
\nin India.  (2004) 2 SCC 473 in Fakeerappa and another -Vs- Karnataka Cement Pipe
\nFactory and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deducted only 1\/3rd towards
\npersonal expenses from the income of the bachelor.  Similar is the view taken by
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bilkish -Vs- United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
\nand another reported in (2008) 4 SCC 259, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
\nCorporation -Vs- Sarojamma and another reported in (2008) 5 SCC 142.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.  The aforesaid ratio adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in   a
\nnumber of cases would demonstrate the normal rule in India is deduction of 1\/3rd
\namount from monthly income towards personal expenses.  This case is not
\nexceptional case where 50% has to be deducted.  There is no statutory mandate in
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act that 50% should be deducted for the death of the
\nbachelor.  On the other hand, in some of the cases, it is noticed that no amount
\nwas deducted towards personal expenses.  However, to strike a fine balance,
\n1\/3rd deduction is the normal rule and the Tribunal rightly deducted 1\/3rd
\ntowards personal expenses and it does not warrant any interference by this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
MULTIPLIER:\n<\/p>\n
\t30.  The learned counsel for the appellant submitted, taking into
\nconsideration of the age of the mother, namely 43 years, the Tribunal adopted
\nmultiplier of ’15’.  The learned counsel relying upon the Judgement of Lakshmana
\nIyer case, wherein it was held that ’10’ is the appropriate multiplier,
\nsubmitted that same multiplier has to be adopted in this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t31.  A perusal of the second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act,
\n1988 would reveal that for the age of 22 years, the proper multiplier is ’17’
\nand for the age of 43 years, the multiplier is ’15’.  In this case, the deceased
\nwas aged about 22 years and the age of the mother was 43 years.  The Tribunal
\nrightly took the age of the mother 43 years and adopted multiplier of ’15’ as
\nper the schedule and the same cannot be found fault with.\n<\/p>\n
\t32.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of Judgement held, the second
\nschedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act should not ordinarily be deviated
\nfrom.  In Abati Bezbaruah -Vs- Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India
\nand another reported in (2003) 3 SCC 148, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
\nthe second schedule should not ordinarily be deviated and in Rani Gupta and
\nothers -Vs- United India Insurance Company Ltd., and others reported in 2009 (5)
\nScale 439, it was held that the multiplier specified in the second schedule
\nshould be taken as guideline and in National Insurance Company Ltd., -Vs- Smt.
\nSaroj and others reported in 2009 (8) Scale 188, it was held that appropriate
\nmultiplier from the second schedule has to be followed.  In U.P.Transport
\nCorporation v. Trilokchand reported in 1996 (4) SCC 362,  the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt observed that the second schedule suffers from many defects and it is only
\nguide not reckoner.  However, as on date, the second schedule is appended to the
\nMotor Vehicles Act and forms part of the statue and no amendment has been made
\nor it has been deleted or set aside by any of the Courts.\n<\/p>\n
\t33.  As long as the second schedule remains with this Motor Vehicles Act,
\nthe same, as far as possible has to be followed, depending upon the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.  In this case, no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances has been
\nmade out by the appellant to deviate from the second schedule.  Hence, the
\nsecond schedule was properly taken into consideration and suitable multiplier
\nwas adopted by the Tribunal.  Hence, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is
\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t35.  The learned counsel for the appellant found fault with the Tribunal
\nfor awarding a sum of Rs.15,000\/- for each of the parents towards loss of love
\nand affection and Rs.10,000\/- for the loss of love and affection of the sister
\nstating that it is on the higher side.  The facts of the case would reveal that
\nthe family had one male child who was miserably lost in the accident.  To put it
\nin nutshell, there is no male descending  for the family.  The time took away
\nthe child mercilessly by the cruel accident and no amount of money could
\ncompensate the loss of the child especially only a male child.  The same cannot
\nbe compensated any amount of money.  Though, the amount given towards loss of
\nlove and affection, namely Rs.40,000\/- for three claimants, in the opinion of
\nthis Court is very, low the amount awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed by
\nconsidering ”just compensation” under Section 168 of the  Motor Vehicles Act
\n1988.\n<\/p>\n
TAX DEDUCTION:\n<\/p>\n
\t36.  Though the tribunal did not deduct any amount towards deduction while
\narriving at the compensation, the same is required to be considered by this
\nCourt.  In National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Indira Srivastava and others<\/a> reported
\nin (2008) 2 SCC 763, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the tax payable has to
\nbe deducted from the compensation.  The same principle was reiterated in
\nOriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Ram Prasad Varma<\/a> reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 134.
\nBased on the  above Judgments, 10% deduction has to be made from the loss of
\nincome.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tRs.8,400 X 10\n<\/p>\n
\t\t———–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t100\t\t=  Rs.84,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t8,40,000-84,000\t\t=  Rs.7,56,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tNet loss of Income\t= Rs.7,56,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t37.  The Tribunal rightly awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% and the
\nsame is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t38.  Hence, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:-
\n\tLoss of Income
\n\t(7000 x 12 x 15 x 2\/3rd ) =   Rs.8,40,000-Rs.84,000 =  Rs.7,56,000<\/p>\n
\t\tNet loss of Income           = Rs.7,56,000\/-<\/p>\n
\n\t\tLoss of love and\n\t\taffection \t\t     = Rs.  40,000\/-\n\t\tFuneral Expenses \t     = Rs.   5,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t\t-----------------\n\t\tTotal\t\t\t     = Rs.8,01,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t\t------------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t39.  The award of Rs.5,85,000\/- is enhanced to Rs.8,01,000, which will
\nbear interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the appeal is disposed of.
\nConsequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
vsg<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
\n(Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC No.3)
\nMadurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14\/07\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.M.A.(MD).No.56 of 2009 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2009 The Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., 161-A, East Veli Street Madurai – 625 001. .. Appellant Vs […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-193981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-07T19:09:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-07T19:09:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3830,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009\",\"name\":\"The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-07T19:09:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-07T19:09:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-07T19:09:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009"},"wordCount":3830,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009","name":"The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-07T19:09:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-mr-t-chelladurai-on-14-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Divisional Manager vs Mr.T.Chelladurai on 14 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=193981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193981\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}