Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sundaram vs Baby
2022 Latest Caselaw 6134 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6134 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2022

Madras High Court
Sundaram vs Baby on 25 March, 2022
                                                                            C.M.A.No.1854 of 2017

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 25.03.2022

                                                         CORAM

                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                                  C.M.A.No.1854 of 2017

                     Sundaram                                                    ... Appellant
                                                            Vs.
                     1. Baby
                     2. Anburaj
                     3. Ashokan
                     4. Ananth                                                   ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
                     24.06.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.225 of 2011 on the file of the Motor
                     Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Namakkal.
                                       For Appellant   : Ms.Zeenath Begum
                                       For Respondents : Mr.N.Vijaybaskar
                                                         for M/s. Law Vision

                                                       JUDGMENT

Respondent in M.C.O.P.No.225 of 2011, which was on the file of

the Principal District Court/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Namakkal

is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2016

awarding compensation of Rs.7,10,120/- for the unfortunate death in a

road accident of Kuppan, who was the husband of the first claimant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1854 of 2017

before the Tribunal and the father of claimants 2 to 4.

2. The necessary facts for filing of the claim petition were that

Kuppan was standing on the left side of the road near Taluk Office at

Velur, when a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-28-AB-1297,

dashed against him and caused an accident. It was the case of the

respondent that Kuppan was crossing the road and at that time the

accident has occurred. Due to the accident, Kuppan sustained injuries on

his head, legs and all over the body and first took treatment in Namakkal

Government Hospital and later was shifted to Coimbatore Government

Hospital and then he was again shifted to Namakkal Government

Hospital. He died on the way to hospital.

3. The deceased Kuppan was aged about 52 years and was working

as a Village Assistant and earning a sum of Rs.7,350/- per month.

Seeking compensation for the death of Kuppan his legal representatives

filed M.C.O.P.No.225 of 2011.

4. The respondents stated that the deceased Kuppan was careless

while crossing the road and that was the reason for the accident.

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

C.M.A.No.1854 of 2017

5. The parties were invited to grace the witness box and adduce

evidence.

6. The first point which the Tribunal took up for consideration was

with respect to the negligence aspect and on this ground, the Tribunal

had examined Ex.P1, which was the copy of the First Information Report

and Ex.P2, which was the Motor Vehicles Inspector report. It was found

that the nature of the accident was so severe, that Kuppan had sustained

injuries on his head, legs and all over the body. The motorcycle had

dashed against him while going at a high speed and when he was

standing near the Taluk Office. He fell down and suffered with injuries

all over his body including head. In view of the evidence adduced, the

Tribunal determined that the accident occurred only due to the rash and

negligent driving of the motorcycle. I would affirm that particular

finding.

7. Thereafter, the Tribunal had proceeded to determine the

compensation to the granted. The deceased was aged about 52 years and

was working as a Village Assistant. He was earning Rs.7,350/- per

month. Ex.P.10 is the salary certificate of the deceased and Ex.P.12 is the

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

C.M.A.No.1854 of 2017

pay statement of the deceased Kuppan. In view of those documentary

evidence, the salary of Kuppan was taken at Rs.7,688/- since evidence

was produced and it was rounded up to Rs.7,690/- by the Tribunal.

Taking into account that he would have 6 years remaining in service, the

total income for six years was determined on Rs.7,690/- x 12 x 6 =

Rs.5,53,680/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income towards

personal expenses and after that deduction the income came to

Rs.3,69,120/-. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier "9" and taking into

consideration the income of Rs.3,000/- as per schedule and arrived at a

sum of Rs.2,16,000/-. The total compensation was determined at a sum of

Rs.3,69,120 + Rs.2,16,000/- = Rs.5,85,120/-. Towards loss of love and

affection, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was determined for all the petitioners and

towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.5,000/- and towards loss of

consortium to the 1st respondent, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, towards medical

expenses though Ex.P.3 reflect a sum of Rs.2,26,718/- was incurred, in

view of the absence of prescriptions and medical reports, the Tribunal

had taken into account, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The total compensation

granted by the Tribunal was Rs.7,10,120/-.

8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1854 of 2017

the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and I would uphold the

compensation granted by the Tribunal. It is just and fair and requires no

interference by this court.

9. I am informed that the compensation granted is yet to be

deposited. The award now granted is Rs.7,10,120/- together with interest

at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the

date of deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award,

now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, within a

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to

the credit of M.C.O.P.No.225 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Namakkal. On such deposit,

the respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount equally, now

awarded by this Court as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal,

along with proportionate interest and costs, as awarded by the Tribunal

by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had

granted apportionment and it would remain the same.

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

C.M.A.No.1854 of 2017

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.,

mp/sp

10. With the above observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

stands dismissed. No costs.

25.03.2022

mp/sp Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No

To

1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Namakkal.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.

CMA.No.1854 of 2017

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 : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter