High Court · 2025

CMA.No.1140 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 22.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARCMA No.1140 of 20251. Ramasamy2. Valliyammal ... AppellantsVs.1. P.Gowsalya2. Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd., City Centre Complex, 2nd floor, No.66, Thirumalai Pillai Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. ... RespondentsPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to enhance the compensation awarded in MCOP No.516 of 2021 dated 05.09.2024 on the file of the Chief Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.For appellants: Ms.Ramya V.RaoFor Respondents: Ms.V.Pushpa for 2nd respondentPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 2025JUDGMENTNot satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come before this court by filing the present appeal.2. It is the case of the claimants that their son Periyasamy died in a road accident that had occurred on 02.12.2020. According to them, the deceased was travelling as a passenger in an Auto from Periyasamy Koil to Muthukapatti Road and when he was nearing Puthukombai Milk Society, the driver of the auto had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost his control and hence, the auto got capsized. As a result of accident, the son of the claimants sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.49,00,000/-. 3. The first respondent owner of the auto remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was opposed by the insurer of the offending vehicle by denying the manner of accident as described in the claim petition. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 2025record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, insured with the second respondent and quantified the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.22,62,000/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed the present appeal.4. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is very much on lower side and hence, it requires enhancement. He further submits that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding 10% enhancement on the amount awarded under the conventional heads, by taking into consideration the date of accident.5. The learned counsel for the second respondent/ insurance company would submit that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month.Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 20256. In the claim petition, it was stated by the claimants that the deceased was a Labourer and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. If there is no documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, considering the facts and circumstances of case and also the year of accident, this court can fix notional income. In the case on hand, the accident had taken place on 02.12.2020 and hence taking into consideration the prevailing cost of living, this court proceeds to fix notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- per month. As per Ex.P16, Transfer Certificate issued to the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 26 years. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The applicable multiplier is 17. At the time of accident, the deceased was a bachelor and hence, 50% shall be deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, loss of dependency is fixed at Rs. 23,56,200/- (16,500 x 1.4 x 12 x 17 x ½).Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 20257. As per the law settled by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, dated 31.10.2017), 10% enhancement shall be given once in three years in respect of the amount awarded under the conventional heads, for the accident that had taken place after the date of delivery of judgment on 31.10.2017 in Pranay Sethi Case. In the case on hand, the accident had occurred on 02.12.2020. Hence, the amount awarded under the head loss of filial consortium is enhanced to Rs.88,000/- and the compensation awarded under the heads loss of estate and funeral expenses are enhanced to Rs.16,500/- each. 8. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation charges including damages to personal belongings is set aside, as it is covered by the compensation under the head loss of estate. 9. Accordingly, the revised compensation awarded by this Court is tabulated as under:Sl. DescriptionAmount Amount Award Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 2025Noawarded by Tribunal (Rs)awarded by this Court (Rs)confirmed or enhanced or granted1.Loss of Dependency21,42,00023,56,200enhanced2.Loss of filial consortium80,00088,000enhanced3.Loss of estate15,00016,500enhanced4.Funeral expenses15,00016,500enhanced5.Transportation charges including damages to personal belongings10,000--set aside Total22,62,00024,77,200enhanced by 2,15,20010. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.22,62,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.24,77,200/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. 11. The second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount now determined by this Court to the credit of MCOP No.516 of 2021 on the file of the Chief Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, along with interest Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 2025and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimants shall be permitted to withdraw their respective compensation amount, in the same proportion, as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, by making formal application before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.22.04.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order: Yes/NoNeutral citation : Yes/NomstTo1. The Chief Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.mstCMA No.1140 of 202522.04.2025Page 8 of 8

CMA.No.1140 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 22.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARCMA No.1140 of 20251. Ramasamy2. Valliyammal ... AppellantsVs.1. P.Gowsalya2. Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd., City Centre Complex, 2nd floor, No.66, Thirumalai Pillai Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. ... RespondentsPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to enhance the compensation awarded in MCOP No.516 of 2021 dated 05.09.2024 on the file of the Chief Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.For appellants: Ms.Ramya V.RaoFor Respondents: Ms.V.Pushpa for 2nd respondentPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 2025JUDGMENTNot satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come before this court by filing the present appeal.2. It is the case of the claimants that their son Periyasamy died in a road accident that had occurred on 02.12.2020. According to them, the deceased was travelling as a passenger in an Auto from Periyasamy Koil to Muthukapatti Road and when he was nearing Puthukombai Milk Society, the driver of the auto had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost his control and hence, the auto got capsized. As a result of accident, the son of the claimants sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.49,00,000/-. 3. The first respondent owner of the auto remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was opposed by the insurer of the offending vehicle by denying the manner of accident as described in the claim petition. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 2025record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, insured with the second respondent and quantified the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.22,62,000/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed the present appeal.4. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is very much on lower side and hence, it requires enhancement. He further submits that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding 10% enhancement on the amount awarded under the conventional heads, by taking into consideration the date of accident.5. The learned counsel for the second respondent/ insurance company would submit that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month.Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 20256. In the claim petition, it was stated by the claimants that the deceased was a Labourer and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. If there is no documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, considering the facts and circumstances of case and also the year of accident, this court can fix notional income. In the case on hand, the accident had taken place on 02.12.2020 and hence taking into consideration the prevailing cost of living, this court proceeds to fix notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- per month. As per Ex.P16, Transfer Certificate issued to the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 26 years. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The applicable multiplier is 17. At the time of accident, the deceased was a bachelor and hence, 50% shall be deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, loss of dependency is fixed at Rs. 23,56,200/- (16,500 x 1.4 x 12 x 17 x ½).Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 20257. As per the law settled by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, dated 31.10.2017), 10% enhancement shall be given once in three years in respect of the amount awarded under the conventional heads, for the accident that had taken place after the date of delivery of judgment on 31.10.2017 in Pranay Sethi Case. In the case on hand, the accident had occurred on 02.12.2020. Hence, the amount awarded under the head loss of filial consortium is enhanced to Rs.88,000/- and the compensation awarded under the heads loss of estate and funeral expenses are enhanced to Rs.16,500/- each. 8. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation charges including damages to personal belongings is set aside, as it is covered by the compensation under the head loss of estate. 9. Accordingly, the revised compensation awarded by this Court is tabulated as under:Sl. DescriptionAmount Amount Award Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 2025Noawarded by Tribunal (Rs)awarded by this Court (Rs)confirmed or enhanced or granted1.Loss of Dependency21,42,00023,56,200enhanced2.Loss of filial consortium80,00088,000enhanced3.Loss of estate15,00016,500enhanced4.Funeral expenses15,00016,500enhanced5.Transportation charges including damages to personal belongings10,000--set aside Total22,62,00024,77,200enhanced by 2,15,20010. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.22,62,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.24,77,200/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. 11. The second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount now determined by this Court to the credit of MCOP No.516 of 2021 on the file of the Chief Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, along with interest Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 2025and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimants shall be permitted to withdraw their respective compensation amount, in the same proportion, as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, by making formal application before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.22.04.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order: Yes/NoNeutral citation : Yes/NomstTo1. The Chief Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1140 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.mstCMA No.1140 of 202522.04.2025Page 8 of 8