High Court · 2025

CMA.No.159 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANICMA.No.159 of 20251.KuzhanthaivelSundaravel (Died)2. Dhanavvel3. Manjula4. Nathiya5. Velvezhi6. Sasikala7.Vembhu8.Arivazhagi9.Ananthababu10.Kolanji(Petitioner 4 to 11 are Lrs of Sundaravel) ...AppellantsVs.1.Saravanan2. The General Manager,Liberty General Insurance Company Ltd.,King Plaza No.4, 1st floor,AA-18/1, Anna Nagar,Thennur, Trichy. ...RespondentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and Award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Special Court I) Jayankondam in MCOP.No.60 of 2021 (Jayankondam Sub Court Mcop.No.16 of 2021) dated 23.06.2023.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 2025For Appellants: M/s.P.ParthikannanFor Respondents: Mrs.C.Harini for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates for R2JUDGMENTChallenging the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2023. passed in MCOP.No.60 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Special Court I) Jayankondam, the claimants have filed the above appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. It is the case of the claimants that, on 15.10.2020at about 6:00 pm, when the mother of the claimants / deceased was walking in the extreme left side of the road, at that time, a two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN 61 S 1731 belonging to the first respondent had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Thereby, the appellants, who are the dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.5737 of 2024 claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 20253. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.8 and the respondents have neither marked any exhibits nor examined any witnesses. After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent van and awarded Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the above said accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent van and the accident is of the year 2015 and at the time of accident, the deceased was only aged about 68 years and was running a Tiffin Stall and was earning not less than a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-, which is very meagre and the same is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in catena of 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 2025decisions and thereby, the same has to be interfered with. Further, the compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contended that, by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, which does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.7. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties and the parties have not raised any issue on the aspect of negligence and therefore, this Court is not venturing into the same. 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 20258. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is concerned, the accident is of the year 2015 and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 68 years and she was running a Tiffin Stall, however, the Tribunal had fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, which is on the lower side. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Company reported in 2014 (1) TANMAC 459, and also considering the age of the deceased as also the claimants, fixing a notional income of Rs.10,000/- and since the deceased was aged about 68 years, she is not entitled for future prospects. As has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680, the income per month is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.6,667/- per month (Rs.10,000/- - Rs.3333/-)and the deceased being aged about 68 years, as evidenced from the records, adopting the multiplier of 5 as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 2025loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.6,667/- * 12 * 5 = Rs.4,00,020/-. 9. No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection, hence this Court grants a sum of Rs.30,000/- to each dependents in total a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (4 * Rs.30,000/-) is granted to all the appellants. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under other heads are just and reasonable and the same does not requires interference of this Court.10. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under :-HeadsAmount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs.)Modified Award Amount(Rs.)Loss of dependency3,20,000/-4,00,020/-(enhanced)Loss of love and affection-1,20,000/-(awarded)Loss of estate15,000/-15,000/-Loss of funeral 15,000/-15,000/-6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 2025HeadsAmount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs.)Modified Award Amount(Rs.)expensesTotal3,50,000/-5,50,020/-11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed in part and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.6797 of 2015 is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.5,50,020/-. The 2nd respondent Insurance is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of MCOP.No.6797 of 2015 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the appellants/claimants through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereafter, upon production of proof with regard to payment of Court fee on the enhanced compensation. It is underscored that the appellants are not entitled to any interest for the default period, if any. The compensation awarded by this Court shall be apportioned 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 2025among the appellants equally, with proportionate interest and costs. No costs.27.01.2025rapNCC: Yes/NoIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking Order : Yes/No To:8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 20251. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The (Special Sub Court No.2, Motor Accidents Claims Petitions) Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.M.DHANDAPANI, J.rapCMA.No.159 of 20259/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 202527.01.202510/10

CMA.No.159 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANICMA.No.159 of 20251.KuzhanthaivelSundaravel (Died)2. Dhanavvel3. Manjula4. Nathiya5. Velvezhi6. Sasikala7.Vembhu8.Arivazhagi9.Ananthababu10.Kolanji(Petitioner 4 to 11 are Lrs of Sundaravel) ...AppellantsVs.1.Saravanan2. The General Manager,Liberty General Insurance Company Ltd.,King Plaza No.4, 1st floor,AA-18/1, Anna Nagar,Thennur, Trichy. ...RespondentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and Award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Special Court I) Jayankondam in MCOP.No.60 of 2021 (Jayankondam Sub Court Mcop.No.16 of 2021) dated 23.06.2023.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 2025For Appellants: M/s.P.ParthikannanFor Respondents: Mrs.C.Harini for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates for R2JUDGMENTChallenging the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2023. passed in MCOP.No.60 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Special Court I) Jayankondam, the claimants have filed the above appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. It is the case of the claimants that, on 15.10.2020at about 6:00 pm, when the mother of the claimants / deceased was walking in the extreme left side of the road, at that time, a two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN 61 S 1731 belonging to the first respondent had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Thereby, the appellants, who are the dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.5737 of 2024 claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 20253. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.8 and the respondents have neither marked any exhibits nor examined any witnesses. After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent van and awarded Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the above said accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent van and the accident is of the year 2015 and at the time of accident, the deceased was only aged about 68 years and was running a Tiffin Stall and was earning not less than a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-, which is very meagre and the same is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in catena of 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 2025decisions and thereby, the same has to be interfered with. Further, the compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contended that, by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, which does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.7. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties and the parties have not raised any issue on the aspect of negligence and therefore, this Court is not venturing into the same. 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 20258. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is concerned, the accident is of the year 2015 and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 68 years and she was running a Tiffin Stall, however, the Tribunal had fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, which is on the lower side. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Company reported in 2014 (1) TANMAC 459, and also considering the age of the deceased as also the claimants, fixing a notional income of Rs.10,000/- and since the deceased was aged about 68 years, she is not entitled for future prospects. As has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680, the income per month is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.6,667/- per month (Rs.10,000/- - Rs.3333/-)and the deceased being aged about 68 years, as evidenced from the records, adopting the multiplier of 5 as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 2025loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.6,667/- * 12 * 5 = Rs.4,00,020/-. 9. No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection, hence this Court grants a sum of Rs.30,000/- to each dependents in total a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (4 * Rs.30,000/-) is granted to all the appellants. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under other heads are just and reasonable and the same does not requires interference of this Court.10. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under :-HeadsAmount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs.)Modified Award Amount(Rs.)Loss of dependency3,20,000/-4,00,020/-(enhanced)Loss of love and affection-1,20,000/-(awarded)Loss of estate15,000/-15,000/-Loss of funeral 15,000/-15,000/-6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 2025HeadsAmount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs.)Modified Award Amount(Rs.)expensesTotal3,50,000/-5,50,020/-11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed in part and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.6797 of 2015 is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.5,50,020/-. The 2nd respondent Insurance is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of MCOP.No.6797 of 2015 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the appellants/claimants through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereafter, upon production of proof with regard to payment of Court fee on the enhanced compensation. It is underscored that the appellants are not entitled to any interest for the default period, if any. The compensation awarded by this Court shall be apportioned 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 2025among the appellants equally, with proportionate interest and costs. No costs.27.01.2025rapNCC: Yes/NoIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking Order : Yes/No To:8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 20251. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The (Special Sub Court No.2, Motor Accidents Claims Petitions) Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.M.DHANDAPANI, J.rapCMA.No.159 of 20259/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.159 of 202527.01.202510/10