High Court · 2025
Case Details
CMA No. 2191 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICMA No. 2191 of 20251. Kavitha2. GundumaniAppellantsVs1. D.Asairajan2.The Reliance General Insurance CO LtdMotor III Party Claims Office, Reliance Tower Legal Section, No. 6, Haddows Road, Chennai 6.RespondentsPRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Sec.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the award passed by the MACT, Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in MCOP.No.2622 of 2021, dated 18-01-2024.For Appellant(s):Mr.K.SivakumarFor Respondent(s):Mr. S. Gopi For R1 Mr. P. Suresh Srinivasan For R21/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 2025JUDGMENTChallenging the impugned award passed by the tribunal in MCOP.No.2622 of 2021, the appellants/petitioners have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. The appellants are mother and father of deceased Suresh. The case of appellants is that on 05.06.2021 at about 14.00 hours, when the victim was riding his two wheeler bearing Regn. No. TN-19 V-3615 from Irumpuli to Gangapuram Road, near Irumpuli Kolikalangkarambu land, a Ashok Leyland Dost bearing Regn. No. TN-97-Y-0088 came from opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased two wheeler and caused an accident. Due to which, the deceased sustained head injury, for which he underwent treatment in the hospital, but he died inspite of treatment. Under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation of Rs.49,00,000/-.3.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.22,62,000/- under various heads as follows:2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 2025S.NoCompensation awarded under the headAmount(in Rs.)1.Loss of income21,42,0002.Loss of estate15,0003.Loss of consortium80,0004.Funeral expenses15,0005.Transport charges10,000Total compensation awarded (by adding Sl. Nos. 1 to 5)22,62,0004.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 2021 and he was a painter, thereby he had earned a sum of Rs.1000/- per day, but without considering the same as well as without considering cost of living at that time, the tribunal had fixed the notional income as Rs.15000/-. He would also submit that as per the post-mortem certificate, it reveals that his age is 25 years and as per the death certificate, it is certified that his age is 26 years, but his age is to be taken as 25 years. Hence, they prayed for enhancement of compensation and also prayed to arrive his age as 25 years.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 20256. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent raised objections stating that the deceased was aged about 25 years and there is no proof produced on the side of appellants for the income derived by him as a painter around Rs.30,000/- per month. He would also raised strong objections stating that as per the death certificate, it reveals the fact that his age is 25 years. Hence, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the notional income as Rs.15,000/- and also arrived his age as 26 years, which needs no interference. 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 2021 and the deceased was a painter and even per day his income is to be considered as a sum of Rs.600/-, thereby he would have earned Rs.18,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the notional monthly income of the deceased Suresh from Rs.15000/- to Rs.18,000/-. Furthermore, on perusal of award and as per death certificate of deceased, his age was arrived as 26 years, however, on perusal of post-mortem certificate, his age was shown as 25 years. Considering that, this court is inclined to arrive his age as 25 years. Accordingly, as per ratio laid down in the authority reported on 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC in Smt. Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, the multiplier is to be arrived at 18. The 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 2025compensation that has been fixed under the other heads are reasonable and does not require the interference of this Court.9.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 income Rs.18,000/- (add 40% future prospects)= 18000 + 7200 =2520025200 x 12 x 18 (multiplier) = 54,43,200 – 1/2 (27,21,600)= 27,21,60021,42,00027,21,600enhanced2.Loss of estate 15,00015,000confirmed3.Loss of consortium80,00080,000confirmed4.Funeral expenses15,00015,000confirmed5.Transport charges10,00010,000confirmedTotal22,62,00028,41,600enhanced10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.22,62,000/- is enhanced to Rs.28,41,600/-. 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 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 2025receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit of the enhanced compensation amount now determined by this Court, the appellants 1 and 2 are entitled to share the amount proportionately as ordered by the Tribunal and they are permitted 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 claimants. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. 11.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, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 2025T.V.THAMILSELVI J.rppCMA No. 2191 of 2025 12-08-20257/7
CMA No. 2191 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICMA No. 2191 of 20251. Kavitha2. GundumaniAppellantsVs1. D.Asairajan2.The Reliance General Insurance CO LtdMotor III Party Claims Office, Reliance Tower Legal Section, No. 6, Haddows Road, Chennai 6.RespondentsPRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Sec.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the award passed by the MACT, Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in MCOP.No.2622 of 2021, dated 18-01-2024.For Appellant(s):Mr.K.SivakumarFor Respondent(s):Mr. S. Gopi For R1 Mr. P. Suresh Srinivasan For R21/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 2025JUDGMENTChallenging the impugned award passed by the tribunal in MCOP.No.2622 of 2021, the appellants/petitioners have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. The appellants are mother and father of deceased Suresh. The case of appellants is that on 05.06.2021 at about 14.00 hours, when the victim was riding his two wheeler bearing Regn. No. TN-19 V-3615 from Irumpuli to Gangapuram Road, near Irumpuli Kolikalangkarambu land, a Ashok Leyland Dost bearing Regn. No. TN-97-Y-0088 came from opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased two wheeler and caused an accident. Due to which, the deceased sustained head injury, for which he underwent treatment in the hospital, but he died inspite of treatment. Under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation of Rs.49,00,000/-.3.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.22,62,000/- under various heads as follows:2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 2025S.NoCompensation awarded under the headAmount(in Rs.)1.Loss of income21,42,0002.Loss of estate15,0003.Loss of consortium80,0004.Funeral expenses15,0005.Transport charges10,000Total compensation awarded (by adding Sl. Nos. 1 to 5)22,62,0004.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 2021 and he was a painter, thereby he had earned a sum of Rs.1000/- per day, but without considering the same as well as without considering cost of living at that time, the tribunal had fixed the notional income as Rs.15000/-. He would also submit that as per the post-mortem certificate, it reveals that his age is 25 years and as per the death certificate, it is certified that his age is 26 years, but his age is to be taken as 25 years. Hence, they prayed for enhancement of compensation and also prayed to arrive his age as 25 years.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 20256. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent raised objections stating that the deceased was aged about 25 years and there is no proof produced on the side of appellants for the income derived by him as a painter around Rs.30,000/- per month. He would also raised strong objections stating that as per the death certificate, it reveals the fact that his age is 25 years. Hence, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the notional income as Rs.15,000/- and also arrived his age as 26 years, which needs no interference. 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 2021 and the deceased was a painter and even per day his income is to be considered as a sum of Rs.600/-, thereby he would have earned Rs.18,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the notional monthly income of the deceased Suresh from Rs.15000/- to Rs.18,000/-. Furthermore, on perusal of award and as per death certificate of deceased, his age was arrived as 26 years, however, on perusal of post-mortem certificate, his age was shown as 25 years. Considering that, this court is inclined to arrive his age as 25 years. Accordingly, as per ratio laid down in the authority reported on 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC in Smt. Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, the multiplier is to be arrived at 18. The 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 2025compensation that has been fixed under the other heads are reasonable and does not require the interference of this Court.9.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 income Rs.18,000/- (add 40% future prospects)= 18000 + 7200 =2520025200 x 12 x 18 (multiplier) = 54,43,200 – 1/2 (27,21,600)= 27,21,60021,42,00027,21,600enhanced2.Loss of estate 15,00015,000confirmed3.Loss of consortium80,00080,000confirmed4.Funeral expenses15,00015,000confirmed5.Transport charges10,00010,000confirmedTotal22,62,00028,41,600enhanced10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.22,62,000/- is enhanced to Rs.28,41,600/-. 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 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 2025receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit of the enhanced compensation amount now determined by this Court, the appellants 1 and 2 are entitled to share the amount proportionately as ordered by the Tribunal and they are permitted 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 claimants. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. 11.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, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 2191 of 2025T.V.THAMILSELVI J.rppCMA No. 2191 of 2025 12-08-20257/7