Madras High Court
Mrs.V.Kalaivani vs M. Kannan on 20 February, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
CMA.NO.2016 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
CMA.NO.2016 OF 2022
1. Mrs.V.Kalaivani
W/o. Late Venkatachalam,
2. Miss. V.Thejasri (Minor) (aged 6 years)
Rep. By Natural Guardian Mother V.Kalaivani (1st petitioner)
D/o, Late. Venkatachalam,
All are residing at No.7/122,
Vanniar Street, Gajjainaickenpatty,
Salem – 636 201.
Mrs. Nallammal (Since Died)
W/o. Late. Rajee. ... Appellants /
Petitioners
Vs.
1. M. Kannan,
No.1/108, Pudur, U. Maramangalam,
Reddipatty, Omalur Taluk, Salem.
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited
Plot No.3, Sector – 29, Gurgaon – 12.
... Respondents /
Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated 01.06.2022 made
in M.C.O.P.No.616 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 6
CMA.NO.2016 OF 2022
For Appellant : M/s.V.Mythili
For R2 : Mr.B.Sivalollappan
For R1 : Exparte
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.)
This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem, in MCOP No. 616 of 2019, dated
01.06.2022. The appellants, being the wife and minor daughter of the
deceased Venkatachalam, contend that the Tribunal awarded an inadequate
sum as compensation for his untimely demise in a motor accident on
24.07.2017.
2. The deceased, a 35-year-old school teacher at Saraswathi
Matriculation School, Mecheri, was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month.
However, on perusal of Ex. P4 (salary certificate), it is evident that the
Tribunal erroneously fixed the deceased’s monthly income at a notional
amount of Rs. 10,000/-, ignoring his actual earnings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 of 6
CMA.NO.2016 OF 2022
3. While the full salary of Rs. 30,000/- is proven by Ex. P4, in the
absence of corroborative employer testimony, the Court may exercise
prudence and make a reasonable deduction to account for any
inconsistencies or potential variations in earnings. Even with such
deductions, a fair and reasonable assessment of income cannot go below
Rs.20,000/- per month, Additionally, applying 40% towards future
prospects, which amounts to Rs.8,000/-, the total monthly income is fixed at
Rs.28,000/-.
4. The Tribunal further applied a multiplier of 15, assuming that the
deceased was more than 35 years old. As per Ex P2 - Postmortem
certificate the age of the deceased is mentioned as about 35 years. When the
postmortem certificate states "about 35 years," it generally means that the
estimated age is approximately 35, with a possible variation of one or two
years. "About" signifies an approximation, not a definitive statement that
the person had crossed 35. In case of ambiguity, the benefit of doubt should
favor the claimants to ensure fair compensation. Legal precedents suggest
that when age is unclear, the lower bound should be applied to avoid undue
reduction in compensation. Therefore, in this case, the age should be fixed
as 35 years and not 36. As per Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 of 6
CMA.NO.2016 OF 2022
correct multiplier for a 35-year-old deceased is 16. The Tribunal’s
application of a multiplier of 15 was incorrect, and the correct multiplier of
16 must be applied in determining the compensation.
5. As regards other heads, the loss of affection shall prevail only for
the child since the wife has been awarded compensation under the head loss
of consortium and the mother of the deceased is no more.
6. The revised quantum of compensation shall be based on these
modifications as follows:
S.No. Heads Amount
1 Loss of Income (Rs.28,000 x 12 x 16) Rs.35,84,000/-
5,376,000 – 1/3 (17,92,000)
2 Loss of love and affection for only second Rs.20,000/-
appellant
3 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.36,59,000/-
7. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal viz. Rs.11,25,000/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.36,59,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs and Fifty Nine
Thousand only). The Second respondent / Insurance Company is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 of 6
CMA.NO.2016 OF 2022
deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, less the amount
if any already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.616 of 2019 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem,
within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellants are entitled to
withdraw the same by filing proper application. The apprortionment made
by the Tribunal is unaltered. The share amount of the minor second
petitioner shall be invested in any one of the Nationalised Banks, until she
attain majority and the first petitioner being her mother and natural guardian
is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the share of the minor once
in three months for the maintenance and welfare of the minor.
The appellants are directed to pay necessary Court fee for the enhanced
compensation, if any. No costs.
[R.S.K., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
20.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
av
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 of 6
CMA.NO.2016 OF 2022
R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
DR. A.D.MARIA CLETE
av
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge, Salem.
CMA. NO.2016 OF 2022
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 of 6
