High Court · 2025

CMA No. 2193 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICMA No. 2193 of 20251. S.Manisha2. S Yuthika Sri (Minor)Minor Rep by her mother and next friend the 1st petitioner3. D Manimegalai4. D Tamil SelviAppellantsVs1. I.Jabamalai Rackini2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Motor Third party Hubb, 4th Floor, Silinghi builidngs, 134 Greams Road, Thousand lights, Chennai-600 006Respondents1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2193 of 2025PRAYER :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Sec.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29-08-2023 and made in MACTOP.NO.2676/2018 on the file of the Special Court II (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai.For Appellant:Mr.R.Kalai ArasanFor Respondents:Mr. C. Paranthaman For R2JUDGMENTChallenging the impugned award passed by the tribunal in MCOP.No.2676 of 2018, the appellants/petitioners have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. The appellants are wife, daughter, mother and sister of deceased D.Sathish. The case of appellants is that on 13.02.2018 at about 04.00 hrs., when the four passengers have travelled in a car bearing Regn. No. TN-11 T-6347 from Pondicherry to Saidapet, at that time, the driver of a car drove it in a rash and negligent manner and lost his control, so dashed against the tree and caused an accident. Due to which, the deceased Sathish sustained multiple injuries, for which he underwent treatment in the hospital, but he died inspite of treatment on the same day. Under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2193 of 20253.The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent. Having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation payable at Rs.26,25,200/- under various heads as follows:S.NoCompensation awarded under the headAmount(in Rs.)1.Loss of dependency24,75,2002.Loss of consortium1,20,0003.Loss of estate15,0004.Funeral expenses15,0005.Medical expensesNil Total compensation awarded (by adding Sl. Nos. 1 to 5)26,25,2004.The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 5. The learned counsel for appellants would argue that the accident was happened in the year 2018 and he was working as service coordinator and earned a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month, but without considering the same as well as without considering cost of living at that time, the tribunal had fixed the notional monthly income as Rs.13,000/-. Hence, they prayed for enhancement of compensation.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2193 of 20256. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent raised objections stating that the appellants have not produced driving licence of car driver as well as documents to the car and also not produced any proof on the side of appellants for the income derived by him as service coordinator driver around Rs.13000/- per day. Hence, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the notional income as Rs.13,000/- per month, which needs no interference. He would also submit that the 4th appellant, who is sister of deceased has got married. Hence, deduction towards personal living expenses is not to be considered as 1/4.7. Heard rival submissions of both learned counsel for appellants and 2nd respondent and perused the materials available on record. 8. On seeing the facts, it reveals that the accident was happened in the year 2018 and he was worked as service coordinator, thereby even per day his income is to be considered as a sum of Rs.600/- and he would have earned Rs.18,000/- per month. Therefore, considering the fact that he was a service coordinator by profession as well as considering cost of living at that time, this Court is inclined to enhance the notional income of the deceased Sathish from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.18,000/-. Since the father of deceased is no more and it seems that the 4th appellant is sister of deceased, he was only taking care of family. Hence, the tribunal has rightly arrived the personal and living expenses at 1/3 as his father was predeceased him, he took care of entire family, which needs no interference. The compensation that has been fixed under the other heads are reasonable and does not require the interference of this Court.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2193 of 20259.In the light of the above discussion, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified as follows:S.NoCompensation awarded under the headAmount awarded by the tribunal(in Rs.)Amount(in Rs.)Award confirmed or granted or enhanced1.For loss of dependencyRs.18,000/- (add 40% future prospects)= 18000 + 7200 =2520025200 x 12 x 17 (multiplier) = 51,40,800 – 1/3 (17,13,600) = 34,27,20024,75,20034,27,200enhanced2.Loss of consortium(Rs.40,000 x 3)1,20,0001,20,000confirmed3.Loss of estate15,00015,000confirmed4.Funeral expenses15,00015,000confirmed5.Medical expensesnilnilconfirmedTotal26,25,20035,77,200enhanced10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.26,25,200/- is enhanced to Rs.35,77,200/-. The second respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit of the enhanced compensation amount now determined by this Court, the first appellant is entitled to her share proportionately as ordered by the Tribunal and she 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2193 of 2025permitted to withdraw the enhanced award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. Insofar as the enhanced compensation is concerned, the deficit court fee, if not paid, shall be paid by the appellants. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. 11.As far as the share of minor appellants 2 and 3 are concerned, the same shall be deposited in any nationalised bank bearing fixed deposit scheme until the minor attains majority and the interest thereon shall be withdrawn by minor appellants' mother, once in three months.12.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. 12-08-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NorppTo1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Court-II, Chennai.2. Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2193 of 2025T.V.THAMILSELVI J.rppCMA No. 2193 of 2025 12-08-2025(2/2)7/7