High Court · 2024

C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.07.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELC.M.A.No. 1303 of 20231.Manimegalai2.Minor. Harish Murugan...AppellantsVs.1.Shanthi2.Sakthivel3.Haripradhap4.Senthilkumar5.Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sachin Plaza, Alagapuram, Saradha College Main Road, Alagapuram, Salem - 636 016. ...RespondentsPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed in MCOP.No. 1111 of 2021 on the file of the Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem dated 15.12.2022.1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023For Appellants : Ms.J.PrithiviFor Respondents: Mr.Sanjay for Mr.P.Jagadeesan for R1 & R2 Mrs.V.Pushpa for R5 R4 - Exparte vide JR (AS) R3 - Out of stationJ U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)The claimants are on appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of one Karthikeyan in a road accident that happened on 22.10.2020 at about 02.00 a.m.2.The claimants sought for a compensation at Rs.68,50,000/- contending that on the fateful day, Puthiragoundampalayam over bridge, when the deceased was driving his car in Attur to Valapadi road at around 02.00 a.m. on Puthiragoundampalayam over bridge, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-52-H-1618 which was going ahead of him, driven in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly stopped in the middle of the road without any signal whatsoever. The deceased, who was following the lorry 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023could not avoid hitting the lorry and crashed into the lorry from behind on the left side of the lorry. As a result of the accident, he suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot. His friend, P.W.2 who was following him on his motor cycle informed the 1st petitioner of the accident and also lodged a complaint to that effect. Terming negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry as the cause for the accident and contending that the deceased was a businessman earning about Rs.35,000/- per month, the claimants, who are the wife and son of the deceased sought for a compensation of Rs.65,00,000/-. The parents of the deceased were shown as respondents 1 & 2 in the original petition. 3. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimants. It was also claimed that the deceased himself contributed to the accident because of his own rash and negligent driving. It would contend that if only the deceased had maintained a safe distance from the lorry, he would have avoided the accident. It was also contended that the testimony of P.W.2 is interested testimony and therefore, it cannot be taken on its face value. 4. At trial, before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant / wife of the deceased 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023was examined as P.W.1 and an eye-witness, Mr.Naveethbasha was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. The Insurance Company did not let in any evidence. Driving license of P.W.2 was marked as Ex.X1. On a consideration of the material available, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers. The Tribunal however, apportioned the negligence on the part of the deceased at 60%, and on the lorry driver at 40%. 5. On the quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-. It applied future prospects at 40% and arrived at the monthly income of Rs.16,800/-. It deducted 1/4 towards personal and living expenses, applied multiplier of 17 and arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.25,70,400/-. It awarded loss of consortium for the wife at Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation arrived at Rs.26,60,400/-. The Tribunal deducted 60% towards contributory negligence and compensation payable by the Insurance Company was determined at Rs.10,64,160/-. Aggrieved, the claimants are on appeal.6. We have heard Ms.J.Prithivi, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.Sanjay, learned counsel for the R1 & R2 / parents of the deceased and 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023Ms.V.Pushpa, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. The 4th respondent has been served and has been set exparte. The 3rd respondent / owner of the car has not been served. Since the liability is not disputed and as the deceased was the driver of the car, either owner or the Insurer of the car can be made liable for payment of compensation. Hence, we do not see any need for hearing the 3rd respondent.7. Ms.J.Prithivi, learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Tribunal was not right in assuming contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car. She would draw our attention to the evidence of P.W.2, an eye-witness, who has deposed regarding the manner of the accident. The manner of the accident has been described by P.W.2 in his proof affidavit as follows:-"gpwF fhh;j;jpnfad; mth; te;j fhhpYk;. ehd; vd;Dila ,U rf;fu thfdj;jpYk; rhpahd ftdj;Jld; kpjkhd ntfj;jpy; Mj;J}hpypUe;J thHg;gho te;J bfhz;oUe;njhk;/ mg;nghJ g[j;jpuft[z;lk;ghisak; nkk;ghyj;jpy; te;J bfhz;oUe;jnghJ TN-52-H-1618 vd;w fd uf yhhpahdJ xnu neuhf bry;yhky; ntfkhf brd;W bfhz;oUe;jJ/ me;j yhhpf;Fg; gpd;dhy; fhh;j;jpnfad; nghjpa ,ilbtsptpl;L fhiu 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023kpjkhd ntfj;jpy; Xl;or; brd;W bfhz;oUe;jhh;/ ehd; fhh;j;jpnfad; Xl;o brd;w fhUf;Fg; gpd;dhy; nghjpa ,ilbtsp tpl;L brd;W bfhz;oUe;njd;/ mg;nghJ fhiy Rkhh; 2/00 kzpastpy; jpObud yhhp Xl;Leh; yhhpapd; gpnuf;ifg; nghl;Ltpl;lhh;/ mjdhy; yhhpf;Fg; gpd;dhy; brd;w fhh;j;jpnfadpd; fhh; nkw;go yhhpf;Fg; gpd;dhy; brd;W nkhjptpl;lJ/ clnd ehd; vdJ ,U rf;fu thfdj;ij epWj;jptpl;L brd;W ghh;j;j nghJ fhhpd; Kd;gf;fk; eR';fpapUe;jJ fhh;j;jpnfaDf;F gyj;j gLfhak; Vw;gl;oUe;jJ/ mth; K:r;Rg; ngr;rpy;yhky; ,Ue;jhh;/ gpwF ehd; ,J gw;wp mtuJ kidtp kzpnkfiyf;F jfty; bjhptpj;njd;/"8. The said witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the cross-examination reads as follows:-"kDjhuh;fis Vw;fdnt vdf;F bjhpa[k;/ nghyPrpy; ehd; g[fhh; bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ ,we;J nghdth; itf;ftpUe;j nj';fha; filapy; ehd; g';Fjhuuhf ,Uf;f Kot[ bra;atpy;iy/ v';fs; tPl;ow;Fk; rk;gt ,lj;jpw;Fk; Rkhh; miu fp/kP J}ukpUf;Fk;/ ehd; jdpahf ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpy; brd;wjhf bgha; brhy;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpay;y/ mjdhy;jhd; ehd; g[fhh; bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ tpgj;J ele;j neuk; ,ut[ 01/00 kzp/ 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023rk;gt ,lk; ,Ul;lhf ,Ue;jJ/ vdf;F Kd;ghf 10 kPl;lh; ,ilbtspapy; yhhp brd;Wbfhz;oUe;jJ/ ,Ul;lhf ,Ue;jjhy; Kd;dhy; brd;Wbfhz;oUe;j yhhpia vd;dhy; ftdpjpUf;f KoahJ vd;why; rhpay;y/ kDjhuh;fs; nfl;Lf;bfhz;ljw;fpz';f Kd;dhy; brd;Wbfhz;oUe;j yhhp jpObud gpnuf; nghl;ljhf bgha; brhy;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpay;y/ ehd; tpgj;ij nehpy; ghh;f;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ kDjhuh;fSf;F Mjuthf ghh;f;fhj rk;gtj;ij ghh;j;jjhf bgha; rhl;rp brhy;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpay;y/"9. The Insurance Company has not let in evidence to show the manner of the accident. The driver of the lorry has not been examined. Even the cross-examination of P.W.2 by the counsel for the Insurance Company is far from satisfactory. There is not even a suggestion that the deceased did not maintain proper distance and the above extracted cross-examination shows that the cross-examining counsel has not even read the proof affidavit of P.W.2. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not adverted to this evidence. It has gone only by the Motor Vehicle Report of the car and the lorry and come to the conclusion that the driver of the car had contributed to the accident because of his own negligence. 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 202310. In the light of the above evidence that has been placed before us, we are unable to sustain the said finding of the Tribunal. No doubt, the car has rammed behind the lorry but, it is the case of the claimants as well as the evidence of P.W.2 that the car driver rammed against the lorry because the lorry stopped suddenly. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, which has been extracted above, there is not even a suggestion that the lorry did not stopped and the car attempted to overtake the lorry on the left as suggested by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company before us. We cannot allow the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to lead evidence in an appeal. Evidence ought to have been let in before the Trial Court and the said evidence should be by competent persons and not by the counsel for the Insurance Company. 11. We therefore, find that the Tribunal had grievously erred in concluding that the car driver was responsible for the accident and he has been contributed to the accident to the extant of 60%. From the evidence of P.W.2, we find that at best, the contributory negligence on the part of the car driver can be put at 25% and nothing more. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 202312. We find tht the Tribunal has also adopted Rs.12,000/- as notional income. Of course, there is no evidence to show the exact income of the deceased. However, he has shown to be an acting driver, his driving license has also been produced. Hence, we fix the monthly income at Rs.15,000/-. If we adopt 40% increase towards future prospects, monthly income will be Rs.21,000/-. If we deduct 1/4 towards personal expenses, the monthly income would be Rs.15,750/-. If we adopt multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency would be Rs.32,13,000/-.13. On the quantum of compensation under the conventional heads, we find that the deceased had left behind wife, minor child and parents. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium which is not in tune with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, the award on the head of loss of consortium namely, parental consortium, filial consortium and spousal consortium at Rs.40,000/- each would be Rs.1,60,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The award for funeral expenses and loss of estate are sustained. Therefore, the total compensation is re-worked as follows:-S.No.DescriptionAmount9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 20231Loss of dependencyRs.32,13,000/-2Loss of consortium(For the wife, child and the parents at Rs.40,000/-each)Rs.1,60,000/-3Funeral ExpensesRs.20,000/-4Loss of estateRs.20,000/-TotalRs.34,13,000/-14. We have held that the deceased has contributed to the accident and we have fixed the percentage of contribution at 25% therefore, the claimants would only be entitled to 75% of the compensation fixed as above. Thus, the total compensation worked to Rs.25,59,750/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. 15. The compensation awarded is apportioned as follows:-i) The 1st petitioner / wife would be entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- with proportionate interest.ii) the 2nd petitioner / son will be entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- with proportionate interest.iii) The respondents 1 & 2 / the parents would together be entitled to 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023Rs.5,59,750/- with proportionate interest. iv) The share of the minor claimant shall be kept in interest accruing fixed deposit in any of the National Bank till he attains majority. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their share.17. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 26.07.2024kknInternet:YesIndex: NoSpeakingNuetral Citation : NoR.SUBRAMANIAN, J.andR.SAKTHIVEL, J.KKN11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023To:-The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Special District Court,Salem.C.M.A.No. 1303 of 202326.07.202412/12

C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.07.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELC.M.A.No. 1303 of 20231.Manimegalai2.Minor. Harish Murugan...AppellantsVs.1.Shanthi2.Sakthivel3.Haripradhap4.Senthilkumar5.Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sachin Plaza, Alagapuram, Saradha College Main Road, Alagapuram, Salem - 636 016. ...RespondentsPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed in MCOP.No. 1111 of 2021 on the file of the Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem dated 15.12.2022.1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023For Appellants : Ms.J.PrithiviFor Respondents: Mr.Sanjay for Mr.P.Jagadeesan for R1 & R2 Mrs.V.Pushpa for R5 R4 - Exparte vide JR (AS) R3 - Out of stationJ U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)The claimants are on appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of one Karthikeyan in a road accident that happened on 22.10.2020 at about 02.00 a.m.2.The claimants sought for a compensation at Rs.68,50,000/- contending that on the fateful day, Puthiragoundampalayam over bridge, when the deceased was driving his car in Attur to Valapadi road at around 02.00 a.m. on Puthiragoundampalayam over bridge, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-52-H-1618 which was going ahead of him, driven in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly stopped in the middle of the road without any signal whatsoever. The deceased, who was following the lorry 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023could not avoid hitting the lorry and crashed into the lorry from behind on the left side of the lorry. As a result of the accident, he suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot. His friend, P.W.2 who was following him on his motor cycle informed the 1st petitioner of the accident and also lodged a complaint to that effect. Terming negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry as the cause for the accident and contending that the deceased was a businessman earning about Rs.35,000/- per month, the claimants, who are the wife and son of the deceased sought for a compensation of Rs.65,00,000/-. The parents of the deceased were shown as respondents 1 & 2 in the original petition. 3. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimants. It was also claimed that the deceased himself contributed to the accident because of his own rash and negligent driving. It would contend that if only the deceased had maintained a safe distance from the lorry, he would have avoided the accident. It was also contended that the testimony of P.W.2 is interested testimony and therefore, it cannot be taken on its face value. 4. At trial, before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant / wife of the deceased 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023was examined as P.W.1 and an eye-witness, Mr.Naveethbasha was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. The Insurance Company did not let in any evidence. Driving license of P.W.2 was marked as Ex.X1. On a consideration of the material available, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers. The Tribunal however, apportioned the negligence on the part of the deceased at 60%, and on the lorry driver at 40%. 5. On the quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-. It applied future prospects at 40% and arrived at the monthly income of Rs.16,800/-. It deducted 1/4 towards personal and living expenses, applied multiplier of 17 and arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.25,70,400/-. It awarded loss of consortium for the wife at Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation arrived at Rs.26,60,400/-. The Tribunal deducted 60% towards contributory negligence and compensation payable by the Insurance Company was determined at Rs.10,64,160/-. Aggrieved, the claimants are on appeal.6. We have heard Ms.J.Prithivi, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.Sanjay, learned counsel for the R1 & R2 / parents of the deceased and 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023Ms.V.Pushpa, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. The 4th respondent has been served and has been set exparte. The 3rd respondent / owner of the car has not been served. Since the liability is not disputed and as the deceased was the driver of the car, either owner or the Insurer of the car can be made liable for payment of compensation. Hence, we do not see any need for hearing the 3rd respondent.7. Ms.J.Prithivi, learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Tribunal was not right in assuming contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car. She would draw our attention to the evidence of P.W.2, an eye-witness, who has deposed regarding the manner of the accident. The manner of the accident has been described by P.W.2 in his proof affidavit as follows:-"gpwF fhh;j;jpnfad; mth; te;j fhhpYk;. ehd; vd;Dila ,U rf;fu thfdj;jpYk; rhpahd ftdj;Jld; kpjkhd ntfj;jpy; Mj;J}hpypUe;J thHg;gho te;J bfhz;oUe;njhk;/ mg;nghJ g[j;jpuft[z;lk;ghisak; nkk;ghyj;jpy; te;J bfhz;oUe;jnghJ TN-52-H-1618 vd;w fd uf yhhpahdJ xnu neuhf bry;yhky; ntfkhf brd;W bfhz;oUe;jJ/ me;j yhhpf;Fg; gpd;dhy; fhh;j;jpnfad; nghjpa ,ilbtsptpl;L fhiu 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023kpjkhd ntfj;jpy; Xl;or; brd;W bfhz;oUe;jhh;/ ehd; fhh;j;jpnfad; Xl;o brd;w fhUf;Fg; gpd;dhy; nghjpa ,ilbtsp tpl;L brd;W bfhz;oUe;njd;/ mg;nghJ fhiy Rkhh; 2/00 kzpastpy; jpObud yhhp Xl;Leh; yhhpapd; gpnuf;ifg; nghl;Ltpl;lhh;/ mjdhy; yhhpf;Fg; gpd;dhy; brd;w fhh;j;jpnfadpd; fhh; nkw;go yhhpf;Fg; gpd;dhy; brd;W nkhjptpl;lJ/ clnd ehd; vdJ ,U rf;fu thfdj;ij epWj;jptpl;L brd;W ghh;j;j nghJ fhhpd; Kd;gf;fk; eR';fpapUe;jJ fhh;j;jpnfaDf;F gyj;j gLfhak; Vw;gl;oUe;jJ/ mth; K:r;Rg; ngr;rpy;yhky; ,Ue;jhh;/ gpwF ehd; ,J gw;wp mtuJ kidtp kzpnkfiyf;F jfty; bjhptpj;njd;/"8. The said witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the cross-examination reads as follows:-"kDjhuh;fis Vw;fdnt vdf;F bjhpa[k;/ nghyPrpy; ehd; g[fhh; bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ ,we;J nghdth; itf;ftpUe;j nj';fha; filapy; ehd; g';Fjhuuhf ,Uf;f Kot[ bra;atpy;iy/ v';fs; tPl;ow;Fk; rk;gt ,lj;jpw;Fk; Rkhh; miu fp/kP J}ukpUf;Fk;/ ehd; jdpahf ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpy; brd;wjhf bgha; brhy;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpay;y/ mjdhy;jhd; ehd; g[fhh; bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ tpgj;J ele;j neuk; ,ut[ 01/00 kzp/ 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023rk;gt ,lk; ,Ul;lhf ,Ue;jJ/ vdf;F Kd;ghf 10 kPl;lh; ,ilbtspapy; yhhp brd;Wbfhz;oUe;jJ/ ,Ul;lhf ,Ue;jjhy; Kd;dhy; brd;Wbfhz;oUe;j yhhpia vd;dhy; ftdpjpUf;f KoahJ vd;why; rhpay;y/ kDjhuh;fs; nfl;Lf;bfhz;ljw;fpz';f Kd;dhy; brd;Wbfhz;oUe;j yhhp jpObud gpnuf; nghl;ljhf bgha; brhy;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpay;y/ ehd; tpgj;ij nehpy; ghh;f;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ kDjhuh;fSf;F Mjuthf ghh;f;fhj rk;gtj;ij ghh;j;jjhf bgha; rhl;rp brhy;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpay;y/"9. The Insurance Company has not let in evidence to show the manner of the accident. The driver of the lorry has not been examined. Even the cross-examination of P.W.2 by the counsel for the Insurance Company is far from satisfactory. There is not even a suggestion that the deceased did not maintain proper distance and the above extracted cross-examination shows that the cross-examining counsel has not even read the proof affidavit of P.W.2. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not adverted to this evidence. It has gone only by the Motor Vehicle Report of the car and the lorry and come to the conclusion that the driver of the car had contributed to the accident because of his own negligence. 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 202310. In the light of the above evidence that has been placed before us, we are unable to sustain the said finding of the Tribunal. No doubt, the car has rammed behind the lorry but, it is the case of the claimants as well as the evidence of P.W.2 that the car driver rammed against the lorry because the lorry stopped suddenly. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, which has been extracted above, there is not even a suggestion that the lorry did not stopped and the car attempted to overtake the lorry on the left as suggested by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company before us. We cannot allow the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to lead evidence in an appeal. Evidence ought to have been let in before the Trial Court and the said evidence should be by competent persons and not by the counsel for the Insurance Company. 11. We therefore, find that the Tribunal had grievously erred in concluding that the car driver was responsible for the accident and he has been contributed to the accident to the extant of 60%. From the evidence of P.W.2, we find that at best, the contributory negligence on the part of the car driver can be put at 25% and nothing more. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 202312. We find tht the Tribunal has also adopted Rs.12,000/- as notional income. Of course, there is no evidence to show the exact income of the deceased. However, he has shown to be an acting driver, his driving license has also been produced. Hence, we fix the monthly income at Rs.15,000/-. If we adopt 40% increase towards future prospects, monthly income will be Rs.21,000/-. If we deduct 1/4 towards personal expenses, the monthly income would be Rs.15,750/-. If we adopt multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency would be Rs.32,13,000/-.13. On the quantum of compensation under the conventional heads, we find that the deceased had left behind wife, minor child and parents. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium which is not in tune with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, the award on the head of loss of consortium namely, parental consortium, filial consortium and spousal consortium at Rs.40,000/- each would be Rs.1,60,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The award for funeral expenses and loss of estate are sustained. Therefore, the total compensation is re-worked as follows:-S.No.DescriptionAmount9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 20231Loss of dependencyRs.32,13,000/-2Loss of consortium(For the wife, child and the parents at Rs.40,000/-each)Rs.1,60,000/-3Funeral ExpensesRs.20,000/-4Loss of estateRs.20,000/-TotalRs.34,13,000/-14. We have held that the deceased has contributed to the accident and we have fixed the percentage of contribution at 25% therefore, the claimants would only be entitled to 75% of the compensation fixed as above. Thus, the total compensation worked to Rs.25,59,750/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. 15. The compensation awarded is apportioned as follows:-i) The 1st petitioner / wife would be entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- with proportionate interest.ii) the 2nd petitioner / son will be entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- with proportionate interest.iii) The respondents 1 & 2 / the parents would together be entitled to 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023Rs.5,59,750/- with proportionate interest. iv) The share of the minor claimant shall be kept in interest accruing fixed deposit in any of the National Bank till he attains majority. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their share.17. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 26.07.2024kknInternet:YesIndex: NoSpeakingNuetral Citation : NoR.SUBRAMANIAN, J.andR.SAKTHIVEL, J.KKN11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No. 1303 of 2023To:-The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Special District Court,Salem.C.M.A.No. 1303 of 202326.07.202412/12