Madras High Court
C.M.A.No.1174/2025 vs M.John on 2 June, 2025
2025:MHC:1295
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.9604 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 28.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :02.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.9604 of 2025
C.M.A.No.1174/2025:
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
134, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Appellant
vs.
1.M.John
2.J.Arulalbert
3.J.Saleshdavid
4.J.Anandaraj
5.M.Santhikodi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 18.04.2024 made in
M.C.O.P.No.3474 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.9604 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For R1 to R4 : M/s.P.T.Saleem Fathima
For R5 : Notice Dispensed With
C.M.A.No.793/2025:
1.M.John
2.J.Arulalbert
3.J.Saleshdavid
4.J.Anandaraj ... Appellants
vs.
1.M.Santhikodi
2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.134, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai made in
M.C.O.P.No.3474 of 2021 by order dated 18.04.2024 and to enhance the
award.
For Appellants : M/s.P.T.Saleem Fathima
For R2 : Mr.S.Arunkumar
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.9604 of 2025
For R1 : Notice Dispensed With
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed challenging the award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes,
Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.3474 of 2021, dated 18.04.2024.
2. C.M.A.No.793 of 2025 is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation and C.M.A.No.1174 of 2025 is filed by the
Insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the quantum of compensation
and also maintainability of claim petition by the claimants, who according
to the Insurance Company were not dependents of the deceased.
3. It is not in dispute that the wife of the 1st claimant and mother of
the claimants 2 to 4 namely J.Prema died in a road accident that had
occurred on 25.06.2021. According to the claimants, the deceased was
travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-12-
AF-8014 proceeding from East to West near Sadayappa Kalyana
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
Mandabam, Nazarathpet. At that point of time, a lorry bearing Registration
No.TN-57-BE-9783 belonged to the 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.793 of
2025 and insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company came in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the Motorcycle. As a result of the
accident, the deceased was thrown out and sustained multiple injuries all
over the body. Later, she succumbed to the injuries. Hence, a claim petition
was filed seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.
4. The 1st respondent-owner of the lorry remained exparte before the
Tribunal and the claim petition was contested only by the Insurer of the
lorry. It was the case of the 2nd respondent/Insurer of the lorry before the
Tribunal that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the
part of the driver of the two wheeler. The Insurer of the lorry has also
disputed the maintainability of the claim petition on the ground that the
claimants were not dependents of the deceased person.
5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant was examined as PW.1 and on
behalf of the claimants, 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
behalf of the Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no
document was marked.
6. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record, came to
the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on
the part of the driver of the lorry. The compensation payable to the
claimants was quantified at Rs.20,42,625/-. Not satisfied with the quantum
of compensation, the claimants have filed appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation in C.M.A.No.793 of 2025. The Insurer of the lorry filed
separate appeal questioning the very maintainability of the claim petition on
the ground that the claimants were not dependents of the deceased in
C.M.A.No.1174 of 2025.
7. Since both the civil miscellaneous appeals are arising out of same
accident, they are taken up together for hearing.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that
the notional income of Rs.12,500/- fixed by the Tribunal is very much on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
lower side and the same requires enhancement.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurer of the lorry would
submit that the claimants failed to produce any documentary evidence to
prove the avocation and income of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal
was justified in fixing Rs.12,500/- as notional income. He further submits
that the claimants, who are husband and major sons of the deceased person
were not depending on the income of the deceased at the time of accident.
Therefore, they cannot be treated as dependents of the deceased and hence,
the Tribunal ought not have granted any compensation under the head loss
of dependency. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing
for the Insurance Company relied on the following judgments:-
(i) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and others
reported in CDJ 2020 SC 028 : (2020) 11 SCC 356.
(ii) The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs.
Arumugam and others in C.M.A.No.538 of 2021, dated 26.03.2021.
(iii) Seema Rani and others vs. The Oriental Insuarnce Co. Ltd., and
others reported in 2025 INSC 192.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
(iv) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinish Jain and others reported in
CDJ 2018 SC 159 : (2018) 3 SCC 619.
10. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/claimants in C.M.A.No.793 of 2025 would submit that the
claimants are not having sufficient source of income and hence, they were
dependent on deceased at the time of accident. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, the Tribunal was
justified in treating the claimants as dependents and granting compensation
under the head loss of dependency. In support of her contention, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants relied on the following
judgments:-
(i) P.Palani and others vs. David and others reported in 2024 ACJ 893 :
2023 (2) TNMAC 439.
(ii) The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation vs. K.Lakshmi and others reported in 2023 (2) TNMAC
(iii) Chellamuthu vs. S.Periyasamy reported in 2006 (2) TNMAC 70.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
11. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:-
“166. Application for compensation.-(1) An application
for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature
specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or
any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured
or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as
the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the
deceased have not joined in any such application for
compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or
for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased
and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be
impleaded as respondents to the application.
[Provided further that where a person accepts
compensation under section 164 in accordance with the
procedure provided under section 149, his claims petition
before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.]
[(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be
made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the
accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on
business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such
particulars as may be prescribed:
[(3) No application for compensation shall be
entertained unless it is made within six months of the
occurrence of the accident.]
[(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of
accidents forwarded to it under [section 159] as an
application for compensation under this Act.]
[(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other
law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim
compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of
the person injured, survive to his legal representatives,
irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or
had any nexus with the injury or not.]”
12. A close reading of the above Section would make it clear that in
case of death, claim petition can be filed by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased. In case, claim petition has been filed by any
one of the legal representatives of the deceased, the same shall be treated as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
the one for the benefit of all legal representatives of the deceased, who have
not been joined as claimants. Therefore, it is clear that a claim petition can
be maintained by legal representative of the deceased whether he is
dependent or not. Even if a legal representative has got independent source
of income and not dependent on the deceased, he is entitled to get
compensation under conventional heads. Ofcourse, he may not be entitled to
get compensation under the head loss of dependency. In some cases, a legal
representative may have an independent source of income and the same may
not be sufficient enough to support his decent living. In such cases, he will
be partially dependent on the deceased though not fully dependent. In such
cases, he is entitled to claim compensation not only under the conventional
heads but also under the head loss of dependency. However, the Court has
to decide the correct percentage of deduction towards personal expenses of
the deceased in that case. While determining the compensation, the Court
should also take into consideration a vital fact that the estate of the deceased
will certainly go to the benefit of the legal representative notwithstanding
their dependency status.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
13. For example, if a mother dies, the benefit of her estate will go to
her husband and children notwithstanding the fact that they have got
sufficient independent source of income. Any surplus earnings of the
deceased (actual income – personal expenses) will be added to her estate as
value addition. But for the unfortunate road accident, the deceased victim
would have continued to live for some time and her surplus earnings would
have become a part of her estate, which will go to the benefit of her legal
representatives, who may or may not be her dependents. Therefore, merely
because, a legal representative has got independent source of income, we
cannot say he or she is disqualified from maintaining a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
14. A claim petition filed by a legal representative is certainly
maintainable notwithstanding his or her independent source of income.
However, the compensation under the head loss of dependency has to be
decided carefully by taking into consideration the source of income and
sufficiency of the income of the legal representatives/claimants at the time
of accident. This position was very well explained by the Apex Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
Birender case cited supra, the relevant findings of the Apex Court reads as
follows:-
“14. The legal representatives of the deceased could
move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of
Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning
and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still
covered by the expression “legal representative” of the
deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded
that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease
because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal
representative. (emphasis supplied by this Court) Notably, the
expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the
Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus:
“9. In terms of clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section
166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased become entitled to
compensation and any such legal representative can file a
claim petition. The proviso to said subsection makes the
position clear that where all the legal representatives had not
joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal
representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal
representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was
justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.
10. ….. The Tribunal has a duty to make an award,
determine the amount of compensation which is just and
proper and specify the person or persons to whom such
compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the
entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the
same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, “legal
representative” means a person who in law represents the
estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party
sues or is sued in a representative character the person on
whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or
sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal
representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches
of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [1989
Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11)
CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not
confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person
who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the
property of the deceased can represent the estate of the
deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
represent the estate even without title either as executors or
administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All
such persons would be covered by the expression “legal
representative”. As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one
who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor
vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband,
parent and child.”
In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the
provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that
even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a
legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the
concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship
then was, it is observed that there is distinction between “right
to apply for compensation” and “entitlement to
compensation”. The compensation constitutes part of the
estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of
the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the
Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the
deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act.
Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this
decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos.
1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the
deceased and also earning. (emphasis supplied by this Court)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives
of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation.
Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major
married and earning sons of the deceased being legal
representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it
would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the
application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal
representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to
limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence
on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants
were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and
were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/- and
Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely
dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were
staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of
48 years.” (emphasis supplied by this Court)
15. Hence, it is clear that if a legal representative of deceased (who is
major and earning files a claim petition, the Tribunal is bound to consider
the same on merits and claim petition shall not be restricted to conventional
heads alone. Therefore, following the law laid down by the Apex Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
Birender case, I hold that the claim petition filed by the husband and major
sons of the deceased is maintainable.
16. Now, we proceed to decide the question whether the Tribunal was
justified in awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency after
deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased.
17. In the claim petition, it was stated by the claimants that the
deceased was a flower and vegetable vendor and was earning Rs.700/- per
day. However, the claimants have not stated anything in the claim petition
with regard to the fact whether they have got any independent source of
income or they were fully dependent on income of the deceased. The 1 st
claimant-husband of the deceased was examined as PW.1. In his proof
affidavit, he had stated that he was not well and claimants 2 to 4, his sons
are not having sufficient income and therefore, they were depending on
income of the deceased. In the cross examination, he clearly admitted that
the claimants 2 and 3 are married and they are residing separately. Though it
was stated in the proof affidavit that the 1st claimant-husband of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
deceased was suffering from illness, no documentary evidence has been let
in to prove his medical condition. The 1st claimant in his evidence has not
stated that he is not having any independent source of income. There is no
specific plea or evidence with regard to the avocation or income of the 1st
claimant. There is a vague statement in the proof affidavit that he is
depending on the deceased. As far as claimants 2 and 3 are concerned, they
are married, PW.1 clearly admitted that they are living separately.
Therefore, it is clear that the claimants 2 and 3 should be having
independent source of income.
18. Though in the chief affidavit, it was stated by PW.1 that his sons-
claimants 2 to 4 are not having sufficient source of income, there is no
specific plea or evidence with regard to the avocation and income of
claimants 2 to 4. A reading of proof affidavit would indicate that they are
having a source of income but it is not sufficient to meet their living
standard and therefore, they had been depending on the deceased. The
claimants could have produced evidence to show the alleged source of
income and insufficiency of the same to support the claim. However, for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
reason best known to them, they have not produced any evidence with
regard to their avocation and income. The only thing available on record is
the statement in the proof affidavit that their source of income was not
sufficient and therefore, they were depending on the deceased. Looking at
the documentary evidence available on record, Ex.P10 is the copy of the
PAN Card of the claimants. Though it was stated by the claimants that they
were depending on the income of the deceased, conspicuously the PAN
Card of the deceased had not been produced. Since the claimants are having
PAN Card in their own names, we can safely come to the conclusion that
they are having a decent source of income, which must be sufficient.
19. Ex.P9 is the first page of the Bank Pass Book of the claimants. A
perusal of the same would suggest that the 1st claimant is having Saving
Bank Account at Canara Bank, Chennai, wherein the occupation of the 1st
claimant was mentioned as 'Service'. The 2nd claimant is having Saving
Bank Account in UCO Bank, Narasingapuram. Therefore, it is clear that he
is living separately. The 4th claimant also having Saving Bank Account in
UCO Bank at Narasingapuram, wherein a different address is mentioned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
Therefore, it is clear that the claimants 2 and 4 are residing in different
address and they are not living with the 1st claimant. The 3rd claimant-
J.Saleshdavid is having an account in Axis Bank, Chennai-600056. A
perusal of Ex.P9 would indicate that all the claimants are having separate
saving bank account. However, they have produced only first page of the
saving bank account passbook and they failed to produce transaction entries
in the pass book. If the transaction entries are produced, we would be in a
position to come to a conclusion whether any salary has been credited to
their accounts, nature of their income source and sufficiency of the same to
support their living. Therefore, the claimants are guilty of suppression of
best evidence available with them.
20. A perusal of Ex.P10 would indicate that all the claimants are
having PAN Card. It necessarily means that claimants must have a decent
source of income. In these circumstances, we can definitely come to a
conclusion that the claimants cannot be stated to be fully dependent on the
deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
21. On the other hand, the 1st claimant is the husband of the deceased
and the 4th claimant is unmarried son of the deceased. It appears that the
claimants 1 and 4 were living with the deceased at the time of accident and
the claimants 2 and 3, who are married sons are living separately. Merely
because, the claimants are having independent source of income, we cannot
come to a conclusion that they are not depending on the income of the
deceased in the absence of any evidence to show the sufficiency of the
income of the claimants. In these circumstances, taking into consideration
the close relationship between the deceased and claimants and the other
relevant factors, we can hold that the claimants are partially depending on
the deceased.
22. A Division Bench of this Court in Arumugam case cited supra,
while considering the loss of dependency to the husband, deducted 50% of
the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Likewise, in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinish Jain and others case cited supra, the
Apex Court held that major sons having their own source of income and two
grand daughters were not dependent on the deceased and ultimately,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
deducted 50% while calculating the loss of dependency. In Seema Rani
case cited supra, the Apex Court on the facts of that case held that the son of
the deceased was working in a Petrol Pump temporarily and hence, he was
not self-sufficient or independent from the deceased.
23. In the case on hand, all the claimants produced their PAN Cards.
In these circumstances, we cannot come to a conclusion that the claimants
are not having source of income to hold that they are fully depending on the
deceased. Taking into consideration all these factors, I hold that the
claimants, who are all husband and major sons of the deceased cannot be
held to be fully dependent on the deceased and hence, 50% of the amount
shall be deducted from the compensation amount under the head loss of
dependency.
24. In the claim petition, it was stated that the deceased was working
as a flower and vegetable vendor and was earning Rs.700/- per day.
However, in order to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the
claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. Even if there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
evidence to prove the income, this Court by taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case, can fix the notional income.
25. In the case on hand, the accident had occurred in the year 2021.
Taking into consideration the date of accident and prevailing cost of living,
this Court is inclined to fix Rs.18,000/- as notional income of the deceased.
As per Ex.P6-Death Certificate, the age of the deceased was fixed by the
Tribunal at 49 years. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 25%
enhancement towards future prospects. The applicable multiplier is 13. The
Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the amount towards personal expenses of the
deceased on the ground that there are 4 dependents. This Court has
elaborately considered the question of dependency and held that the
claimants, who are all husband and major sons of the deceased are not fully
dependent on the deceased. Taking into consideration the said fact, this
Court is inclined to deduct 50% of the amount under the head loss of
dependency by following the judgment of the Apex Court in Vinish Jain
case and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Arumugam
case cited supra. Therefore, the loss of dependency is fixed at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
Rs.17,55,000/- (Rs.18,000 x 1.25 x 12 x 13 x 1/2).
26. In addition to the amount under the head loss of dependency, the
Tribunal awarded Rs.16,500/- each under the head loss of estate and funeral
expenses. It also awarded Rs.1,76,000/- towards loss of consortium
(Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium for the 1st claimant and Rs.44,000/-
each towards loss of love and affection for the claimants 2 to 4). The above
said sum under conventional heads are in accordance with the law laid
down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. and hence, the
same is affirmed. A sum of Rs.5,500/- awarded by the Tribunal under the
head transportation expenses is covered by the amount awarded under the
head loss of estate and hence, it is set aside. Therefore, the award passed by
the Tribunal is modified as follows:-
Sl. Compensation Compensation
Description awarded by the awarded by Remarks
No. Tribunal this Court
1. Loss of Dependency Rs.18,28,125/- Rs.17,55,000/- Reduced
2. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- Confirmed
3. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- Confirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
Sl. Compensation Compensation
Description awarded by the awarded by Remarks
No. Tribunal this Court
4. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,76,000/- Rs.1,76,000/- Confirmed
Transportation
5. Rs.5,500/- - Set Aside
Expenses
Reduced by
Total Rs.20,42,625/- Rs.19,64,000/-
Rs.78,625/-
27. In view of the discussions made earlier, the appeal in
C.M.A.No.793 of 2025 filed by the claimants is dismissed and
C.M.A.No.1174 of 2025 filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed
by reducing the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs.19,64,000/-
from Rs.20,42,625/-.
28. The Appellant/Insurance Company in C.M.A.No.1174 of 2025 is
directed to deposit the modified award amount of Rs.19,64,000/- together
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition to
the date of realisation, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any,
to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3474 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Chennai (in the IV Court of Small Causes) Chennai,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
29. Out of the above said award amount, the claimants 2 to 4 are
entitled to Rs.2,80,000/- each and the 1st claimant is entitled to remaining
amount of Rs.11,24,000/-. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to
withdraw their respective shares by making formal application before the
Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous
petition is closed.
02.06.2025
Index :Yes / No
Speaking order :Yes / No
Neutral Citation :Yes / No
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.134, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
Pre-delivery Common Judgment made in
C.M.A.Nos.1174 and 793 of 2025
02.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:04 pm )
