Chellammal (Died) vs P.Soorath Peyari
2025 Latest Caselaw 3856 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3856 Mad
Judgement Date : 12 March, 2025

Madras High Court

Chellammal (Died) vs P.Soorath Peyari on 12 March, 2025

                                                                                              C.M.A.(MD)No.1340 of 2024



                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                       Dated : 12.03.2025

                                                              CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

                                                  C.M.A.(MD)No.1340 of 2024


                Parimala (Died)

                Suresh

                Chellammal (Died)                                                      ... Appellant

                                                           Vs.


                1.P.Soorath Peyari

                2.The Branch Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance & Insurance
                  Company Limited, Door No.2/319, Visranthi Melagaram Towers,
                  Rajiv Gandhi Salai, (OMR), Karapakkam, Chennai – 600 097.

                3.P.Justin                                         ... Respondents
                 (The respondents 1 & 3 are set exparte before the trial Court.
                  Notice may be dispensed with.)

                PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
                M.C.O.P.Nos.597 of 2016 and 20 of 2017, dated 22.01.2024 on the file of the
                Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Sub Court, Madurai.
                                  For Appellant            : Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja
                                  For R1                   : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
                                  For R1 & R3              : Exparte
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:33:38 am )
                1/8
                                                                                           C.M.A.(MD)No.1340 of 2024




                                                        JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

appellant/claimant, challenging the award passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), at Valliyoor, in M.C.O.P.No.69 of

2016, dated 28.06.2024.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed herein as per the

ranking in M.C.O.P.No.69 of 2016.

3.The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, are as under:-

The legal heirs of the deceased person were the petitioners therein and

among which, the petitioners 1 and 3 have passed away during the pendency of

the M.C.O.P. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The second

respondent is the insurance company. On 20.06.2015, at about 09.45 a.m., the

deceased Shanmugavel while riding his two wheeler bearing registration

No.TN-72-AY-1434, travelling in Tirunelveli – Kanyakumari District four way

road from north to south, near south of Pallavoor Ganapathipuram Junction, a

four wheeler car bearing registration No.TS-10-EC-3947 dashed the deceased

from behind in a rash and negligent manner. As the result of which, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:33:38 am )

deceased was jammed between the car and tipper lorry, which is travelling

ahead. As the result of which, he passed away on the spot due to injuries

sustained in the back side of his skull. Seeking compensation for the same, the

legal heirs of the deceased have laid the M.C.O.P.No.69 of 2016.

4.Two witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked on the

side of the claimant/appellant. No witness was examined and no document was

marked on the side of the respondents. The learned Tribunal allowed the claim

petition, directing the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,31,875/- as

compensation to the claimant. Challenging the same, this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is filed, seeking enhancement of award amount.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that at the

time of filing M.C.O.P., the claimant has pleaded that the deceased person was

a retired person. However, without noticing the fact that he availed VRS from

service and that he is only 57 years old, the learned Tribunal proceeded to fix

the age of the deceased as 60 years, instead of 57 years and he has filed

voluntary retirement particulars of the deceased before this Court. The learned

Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier '9', since the age of the deceased is

57 years at the time of accident. But since the said document is not marked

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:33:38 am )

before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with for

having fixed the age of the deceased on the basis of the available documents.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the

2nd respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record.

7.A careful perusal of the materials available on record would reveal that

based on the last drawn pension by the deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed

the income of the deceased as Rs.22,125/-, which is reasonable. The learned

Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 60 years. Though the appellant

has filed letter regarding voluntary retirement, pension payment order book and

office records of the deceased before this Court, the appellant should have

taken diligent steps to mark the same before the learned Tribunal. Having failed

to do so, I am not inclined to interfere with the age arrived by the learned

Tribunal.

8.In view of the same, I find it necessary that following the principles of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi

Transport Corporation and others reported in AIR 2009 (SCC) 3104, 1/3rd of

the income of the deceased has to be deducted for personal expenses of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:33:38 am )

deceased. Therefore, the contribution towards family as monthly income is Rs.

14,750/- (Rs.22,125 - 7,375). As per Sarala Verma case, multiplier '7' is to be

adopted. Thereby, the loss of dependency would be calculated as Rs.

12,39,000/- (Rs.14,750x12x7).

9.The learned Tribunal proceeded to pass an award of compensation of

Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection, which is reasonable. A sum of Rs.

10,000/- has been awarded under the head of transportation, which is also

reasonable. That apart, the compensation towards funeral expenses is to be

enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- and no compensation was awarded

under the Head loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss

of estate. Thereby, the total compensation is enhanced from Rs.2,31,875/- to

Rs.13,19,000/-. In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

allowed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:33:38 am )

Head Compensation Compensation Reduced/Enhanc awarded before awarded before ed/ learned Tribunal this Court Confirmed

(i)Loss of Rs.1,71,875/- Rs.12,39,000/- Enhanced Dependency:

(ii)Loss of love Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- Confirmed and affection for the petitioners:

(iii)Transportati Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Confirmed on Expenses:

(iv)Funeral Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Enhanced Expenses:

                      (v)Loss        of -                        Rs.15,000/-            Enhanced
                      Estate:
                      Total             Rs.2,31,875/-            Rs.13,19,000/-         Enhanced
                      compensation
                      awarded:

10.The appellant/claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.13,19,000/- with

interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the claim petition till the date of

realization. The second respondent is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount

with 7.5% interest from date of the claim petition till the date of realization and

the amount if not deposited earlier, has to be deposited within a period of 8

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the

appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, after deducting any

amount received by him earlier. The appellant/claimant is not entitled for

interest for the default period, if there is any. The appellant is directed to pay

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 11:33:38 am )

the additional Court fee on enhanced compensation, if any. There shall be no

order as to costs.