Madras High Court
M.Elanthenral vs Mathiyalagan on 10 January, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
CMA.No.14 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CMA.No.14 of 2025
M.Elanthenral ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Mathiyalagan
2. M/s. Chola Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd.,
60A, Mosuvanna Street, EVN Road,
Near LKM Hospital, Erode – 638 009.
3. Kiruthika ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in
MCOP.No.743 of 2017 dated 01.07.2021 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Navaneetha Krishnan
For Respondents : Notice dispensed with, for R1
: Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, for R2
: Mr.P.Thirumoorthy, for R3
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.14 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2021 made in
MCOP.No.743 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem, the claimant has come up with
this appeal.
2. Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the
2nd respondent and Mr.P.Thirumoorthy, learned counsel takes notice on
behalf of the 3rd respondent. In view of the consent expressed by the
learned counsel on either side, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at
the admission stage itself.
3. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that, on 10.12.2015 at
about 6.30 hours, when the deceased Muthusamy was riding the TVS XL
Heavy duty motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-52-B-7116 along with his
wife namely Rajammal as pillion rider on Nedungulam to Vellerivelli
road near Thittumeadu Mariyamman Kovil, at that time a TATA ACE car
bearing Regn.No.TN-33-AU-4513 owned by the 1st respondent insured
with the 2nd respondent driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
manner and dashed against the Motor cycle in which the deceased were
travelling, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the same. Thereby, the appellant, who is the son of the
deceased Muthusamy and Rajammal filed a claim petition claiming a
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the appellant
examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.9 and the 3rd
respondent/daughter of the deceased examined herself as R.W.1 and
marked Ex.R1. After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.5,14,000/- towards
compensation for the death of his parents, which is very meagre. Being
not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the appellant/claimant has come up with this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the above said
accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the
part of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle and thereby, Ex.P1, FIR
came to be registered as against the driver of the 1 st respondent and due
to above accident, the petitioner lost his parents and the accident is of the
year 2015, however, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.5,14,000/-, which is very meagre and the same is contrary to the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in catena of decisions and thereby,
the same has to be interfered with. Further, the compensation awarded
under other heads are also on the lower side and the same needs to be
enhanced. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company contended that, by considering all the
relevant documents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation,
which does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
6. On the above said contentions, heard learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the 3rd respondent and perused the materials available on
record.
7. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the
parties and the parties have not raised any issue on the aspect of
negligence and therefore, this Court is not venturing into the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal
inrespect of the deceased Muthusamy/father of the appellant is
concerned, the accident is of the year 2015 and at the time of accident,
the deceased was aged about 67 years and he was an agriculturist by
profession, however, the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income
at Rs.4,000/-, which is on the lower side. Applying the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India
Insurance Company reported in 2014 (1) TANMAC 459, and also
considering the age of the deceased as also the claimant, fixing a notional
income of Rs.12,000/- would be just and reasonable. Deducting 1/3rd
towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of income to the
family is arrived at Rs.8,000/- per month and the deceased being aged
about 67 years, as evidenced from the records, adopting the multiplier of
5 as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC
& Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the loss of income to the family is
arrived at Rs.8,000/- * 12 * 5 = Rs.4,80,000/-.
9. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are
concerned, the tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under the head loss of love and affection, which is on the lower side and
thereby, the same is enhanced to Rs.80,000/-, Further, no compensation
has been awarded under the heads transport to hospital and loss of estate
and thereby, this Court awards a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
respectively under the said heads. At the same time, the tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head funeral expenses, which is
on the higher side and thereby, the same is reduced to Rs.15,000/-.
10. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal inrespect of deceased Muthusamy is modified as under :-
Amount awarded Modified Award
Heads by the Tribunal Amount
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of income 1,60,000/- 4,80,000/-
Loss of consortium 40,000/- 80,000/-
Transport to hospital - 5,000/-
Loss of estate - 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-
Total 2,25,000/- 5,95,000/-
11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal
inrespect of the deceased Rajammal/mother of the appellant is concerned,
the accident is of the year 2015 and at the time of accident, the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was aged about 65 years and was doing Milk vending business, however,
the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.5,000/-, which
is on the lower side. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance
Company reported in 2014 (1) TANMAC 459, and also considering the
age of the deceased as also the claimant, fixing a notional income of
Rs.10,000/- would be just and reasonable. Deducting 1/3rd towards the
personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of income to the family is
arrived at Rs.6,666.66/- rounded of to Rs.6,667/- per month and the
deceased being aged about 65 years, as evidenced from the records,
adopting the multiplier of 7 as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the
loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.6,667/- * 12 * 7 =
Rs.5,60,028/-.
12. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are
concerned, the tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/-
under the head loss of love and affection, which is on the lower side and
thereby, the same is enhanced to Rs.80,000/-, Further, no compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has been awarded under the heads transport to hospital and loss of estate
and thereby, this Court awards a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
respectively under the said heads. At the same time, the tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head funeral expenses, which is
on the higher side and thereby, the same is reduced to Rs.15,000/-.
13. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal inrespect of deceased Rajammal is modified as under :-
Amount awarded Modified Award
Heads by the Tribunal Amount
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of income 2,24,000/- 5,60,028/-
Loss of consortium 40,000/- 80,000/-
Transport to hospital - 5,000/-
Loss of estate - 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-
Total 2,89,000/- 6,75,028/-
14. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed in
part and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.743 of
2017 is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from
Rs.2,25,000/- to Rs.5,95,000/- in respect of deceased Muthusamy and
from Rs.2,89,000/- to Rs.6,75,028/- in respect of deceased Rajammal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The 2nd respondent Insurance is directed to deposit the said amounts to
the credit of MCOP.No.743 of 2017 along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit
and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already
deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. In the total compensation arrived at by this Court
ie., Rs.12,70,028/-, the appellant and the 3rd respondent are entitled to a
sum of Rs.6,35,014/- each. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is
directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the
appellant and the 3rd respondent through RTGS within a period of two
weeks thereafter, upon production of proof with regard to payment of
Court fee on the enhanced compensation. It is underscored that the
appellant and the 3rd respondent are not entitled to any interest for the
default period, if any. No costs.
10.01.2025
skt
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt
To:
The Special District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Salem.
10.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
