High Court · 2025

C.M.A.No.923 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARC.M.A.No.923 of 20251.Kimneilhing Khongsai2.Nengjoujam Singson3.Thenneng4.Chunkai Singson... Appellants(2nd Minor Appellant is represented by next Friend and Natural Guardian her Mother 1st Appellant)vs. 1.MLM Agencies, No.3, NA.B.V.Nagar, Kather Thottam, Nanganallur, Chennai – 600 114.2.HDFC ERGo General Insurance Co., Ltd., RR Towers, II. 2nd Floor, TVK Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.... RespondentsPRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 2025Tribunal, Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and made in M.C.O.P.No.1857 of 2019 by order dated 05.06.2024 and praying to enhance the award.For Appellants: Mr.P.T.Saleem FathimaFor R2: Mr.S.ArunkumarFor R1: Notice Dispensed WithJ U D G M E N TNot satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.1857 of 2019, dated 05.06.2024, the claimants have filed this civil miscellaneous appeal. 2. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that husband of the 1st claimant, father of the 2nd claimant and son of the claimants 3 and 4 namely Lunjapao Singson died in a road accident that had occurred on 03.12.2018. According to the claimants, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-DH-6508 by properly wearing helmet proceeding 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 2025from east to west. When he came near Children's Park, Sardarpatel Road, Guindy, Chennai, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-22-DL-8653 owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a consequence, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claim petition had been filed by the dependents of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-.3. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was contested only by the insurer of the lorry by denying the manner of accident as described in the claim petition. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were also denied by the 2nd respondent. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd appellant/3rd claimant was examined as PW.1 and an eye-witness was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the claimants, 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked.3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 20255. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the lorry driver. The compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.36,02,000/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have come by way of this appeal. 6. Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence and liability. Hence, facts necessary to decide those questions are not discussed in this judgment.7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the notional income of Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is very much on lower side and hence, it requires enhancement. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 2025and hence, the Tribunal should have fixed minimum wages payable to the unskilled workers as the income and hence, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is on higher side. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jitendra vs. Sadiya and others reported in 2025 INSC 166. 9. In the claim petition it was stated by the claimants that the deceased was working as a Fund-Raiser and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In order to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. However, the 3rd claimant-mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1, who deposed about avocation and income of the deceased as pleaded in the claim petition. The claimants in the claim petition specifically pleaded that the deceased was a Fund-Raiser and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The said plea was supported by oral testimony of PW.1. The 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company in its counter vaguely denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. However, it is not the case of the 2nd respondent that deceased was an unskilled manual worker. PW.1 was examined to support the plea raised in the claim petition. During the cross examination, she admitted that 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 2025she had not produced any documentary evidence to prove age, avocation and income of the deceased. 10. In the citation relied on by the 2nd respondent, the Apex Court relied on Gurpreet Kaur and others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 and applied minimum wage prevalent in the area for the unskilled workers as the notional income. In Gurpreet Kaur and others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others case, the Apex Court while explaining the rule applying the Minimum Wages Act as a guiding factor to fix the notional income of the deceased observed as follows:-“9. In our considered view, the Tribunal's approach is quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the summary proceedings where the approach of the Tribunal's determination must be in conformity with the object of the welfare legislation, it was rightly held that the monthly income of the deceased could not be less than Rs. 25,000/-. The reason assigned by the High Court to reduce the monthly income of the deceased is totally cryptic and has no rationale. The Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 2025only in a case where there is no clue available to evaluate monthly income of the deceased. Where positive evidence has been led, no reliance on the Notification could be placed, particularly when it was nobody's case that the deceased was a labourer as presumed by the High Court.”11. In the case on hand, it was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was a Fund-Raiser and the same was spoken to by PW.1. The cross examination of PW.1 by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company reads as follows:-ehd; tpgj;jpid ghh;f;ftpy;iy. ,we;jth; vd;Dila kfd;/“ vd; kfdpd; taJ bjhHpy; tUkhdk; Fwpj;j Mtzk; vJt[k; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ tpgj;jpd;nghJ vd; kfd; jiyf;ftrk; mzpatpy;iy vd;whYk; mjdhy; jhd; mtUf;F jiyf;fhak; Vw;gl;lJ vd;whYk; jtW. tpgj;jpd; nghJ mth; jiyf;ftrk; mzpe;jpUe;jhh;/ vd; kfDf;F Xl;Ldh; chpkk; ,y;iy vd;why; bjhpahJ/ vd; kfDf;F Xl;Ldh; chpkk; ,y;iy vd;whYk; mtnu jhd; tpgj;jpw;F KGfhuzk; vd;whYk; jtW/ vd; kfDila kidtp ntW jpUkzk; bra;Jbfhz;L brd;Wtpl;lhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ tpgj;jpw;F vd; kfd;jhd; KG fhuzk; vd;gjhy; 2k; vjph;kDjhuh; ,Hg;gPL ju flikg;gl;ltuy;y vd;why; jtW/”7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 202512. From the cross examination of PW.1 and the counter filed by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, we can come to a conclusion that 2nd respondent only denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased superficially and it was not the case of the 2nd respondent that deceased was an unskilled manual labour. On the facts of the case, if it is established that the deceased was an unskilled manual labour, minimum wage can be fixed as notional income.13. In the case on hand, it is nobody's case that deceased was an unskilled manual worker. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal appears to be a reasonable one. Infact, taking into consideration the date of accident and the prevailing cost of living, this Court can even fix some more amount as notional income of the deceased. However, except the interested testimony of mother of the deceased, there is no evidence available on record to prove the avocation and income. The claimants in the claim petition have not even mentioned the name of the person or employer for whom the deceased worked as a Fund-Raiser. No independent witness has been examined to prove his avocation. In these 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 2025circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enhance the notional income fixed by the Tribunal.14. Though the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company vehemently contended that minimum wage meant for unskilled worker shall be fixed as notional income for the reason mentioned above, I am not inclined to accept his argument for the reasons stated supra. Further, the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal challenging the award. In these circumstances, I affirm the notional income fixed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency is fair and reasonable, as there is no dispute with regard to the multiplier and entitlement for future prospects. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 23 years based on Post Mortem Certificate and Death Report marked as Exs.P3 and P4. Therefore, claimants are entitled to 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The applicable multiplier is 18. Since there are four dependents, 1/4th of the amount shall be deducted toward his personal expenses. The same is in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 202515. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are also in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, therefore, they are affirmed. 16. In view of the discussions made earlier, I do not find anything to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.17. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.30.04.2025Index:Yes / NoSpeaking order:Yes / NoNeutral Citation:Yes / Nodm10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 2025To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.2.HDFC ERGo General Insurance Co., Ltd., RR Towers, II. 2nd Floor, TVK Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.923 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.dmC.M.A.No.923 of 202530.04.2025 12/12