Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Machakanni vs C.Obulesu
2022 Latest Caselaw 1745 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1745 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2022

Madras High Court
Machakanni vs C.Obulesu on 3 February, 2022
                                                                               CMA No.1325 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 03.02.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                       Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1325 of 2020


                     Krishnan (Deceased)

                     1. Machakanni

                     2. Vennila

                     3. Dhanasekar                                             ... Appellants

                                                          Vs.

                     1. C.Obulesu

                     2. United India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
                        No.64, Armenian street,
                        Chennai 600 001.                                       ... Respondents



                     Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,

                     1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in MCOP No.133 of

                     2006 dated 29.08.2012 passed by XVI Additional Small Causes Court,

                     Chennai (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal).

                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  CMA No.1325 of 2020



                                           For Appellants       : Ms.A.Subadra

                                           For Respondents      : Mr.D.Bhaskaran, for R2


                                                   JUDGMENT

The claimants, who are the children of the deceased Manonmani,

are on Appeal terming the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, awarded for the

death of the said Manonmani in a road accident, as meager.

2. It is not in dispute that Manonmani, who was aged about 55

years died in a road accident that occurred on 20.01.2005. The husband and

children lodged the Claim Petition seeking a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. towards

damages though they assessed the pecuniary loss at RS.10,00,000/-.

3. The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the

accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-04-D-8679. The quantum of

compensation claimed was also termed as excessive.

4. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.1325 of 2020

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini Lorry, which was

insured with the second respondent Insurance Company. On the quantum,

the Tribunal found that the claimants being major children were not

dependant on the mother and therefore, they are not entitled to

compensation under the head of loss of dependency and granted only a sum

of Rs.1,00,000/-, as consolidated compensation. The husband of the

deceased, who figured as the first claimant before the Tribunal also died

pending the proceeding. The children are now on Appeal.

5. I have heard Ms.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent/Insurance Company.

6. Ms.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in granting only a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground that the claimants are not dependant on the

mother. This view of the Tribunal, according to the learned counsel,

overlooks the value of the elders. It is the specific case of the claimants that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.1325 of 2020

the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by vending

vegetables which was being contributed by her to her children.

7. Contending contra Mr.Bhaskaran learned counsel appearing for

the Insurance Company would submit that all of them are major children

and they cannot be said to be dependants on the mother.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel on

either side.

9. Loss of dependency is a concept, every person is dependent on

the elders in the family for something or the other. The mother occupies a

very important position in the family and she is looked upon for many

things. Even though she may not be contributing financially to the family

her contribution to the welfare of the family as such, cannot be valued in

terms of money. Therefore, I do not think the Tribunal was right in just

brushing aside the relationship and concluding that the claimants would not

be entitled to compensation because they were not dependant on the mother.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.1325 of 2020

Absolute dependency is not the essential factor for award of compensation

under the Motor Vehicles Act.

10. I am therefore of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in

discarding the dependency and granting only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as

compensation. It is claimed that she was earning about Rs.6,000/- per

month, the accident occurred in 2005, therefore, the monthly income can

safely be assumed at Rs.4,500/- after deducting 1/3 towards a personal

expenses, she would have contributed a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the family.

Adding 10% towards future prospects her monthly contribution would be

Rs.3,300/-. Adopting the multiplier of 9, the total loss of dependency would

be Rs.3,56,400/-. Since the claimants are three in number, a sum of

Rs.75,000/- will be reasonable amount that should be awarded towards loss

of love and affection. A sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards Funeral

expenses and loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- each. Thus the total

compensation works out to Rs,4,61,400/- and it is rounded off to

Rs.4,60,000/- .

11. The claimants have restricted the claim to Rs.3,00,000/-, but

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.1325 of 2020

such a restriction cannot prevent the Court from granting the just

compensation. Therefore, the Appeal is allowed, the award of the Tribunal

with regard to quantum is modified and the same is enhanced to

Rs.4,60,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till

date of deposit. The claimants being the children of the deceased they would

be entitled to share the compensation equally.

12. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced

award amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of

a copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to

withdraw the enhanced compensation subject to payment of Court fee on the

enhanced sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs in this

appeal.

03.02.2022

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order jv

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.1325 of 2020

To

1. The XVI Additional Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.1325 of 2020

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

jv

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1325 of 2020

03.02.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter