Madras High Court

The Divisional Manager vs / on 28 October, 2025

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                      Reserved on               :08.10.2025

                                      Pronounced on             :28.10.2025

                                                       CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
                                            and
                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

                                            C.M.A.No.132 of 2018
                                                    and
                                            C.M.A.No.3835 of 2019

                  C.M.A.No.132 of 2018

                  The Divisional Manager,
                  United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
                  Office No.46-51, T.K.M.Complex,
                  Katpadi Road, Vellore.                        .. 2nd Respondent/Appellant

                                                        /versus/

                  1.S.Vijaya Mary, 35 years,
                  W/o late Subu James,

                  2.Minor.S.Patrice Priyanka, 12 years,
                  D/o Late Sabu James,

                  3.Minor S.Delphina Sabu, 8 years,
                  D/o Late Sabu James.

                  4.J.Alphonsa James, 60 years,
                  W/o James Joseph,



                  1/27



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm )
                  5.J.James Joseph, 67 years,
                  S/o Joseph,
                  All are residing at No.2,
                  Sri Balaji Nagar, 4th Street,
                  Katpadi, Vellore 632 007.
                  Minor Rep.by her next friend
                  Natural Guardian/Mother S.Vijaya Mary                               ..Petitioners/Respondents

                  6.R.Kamala,
                  W/o Ramalingam
                  Residing at No.64E, Thiruvalluvar Street,
                  Tharapadavedu, Katpadi,
                  Vellore.                                                            ..1st Respondent/
                                                                                                 Respondent

                  Prayer in C.M.A.No.132 of 2018:                      Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been
                  filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and
                  decree dated 30.11.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2011 on the file of the
                  Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court,
                  Vellore.

                                  For Appellant         :Mr.S.Arunkumar

                                  For Respondents       :Mr.MA.P.Thangavel for R1 to R5
                                                         Not Ready notice for R6

                  C.M.A.No.3835 of 2019:

                  1.Mrs.S.Vijaya Mary, 35 years,
                  W/o late Subu James,

                  2.Minor.S.Patrice Priyanka,
                  D/o Late Sabu James,


                  2/27



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm )
                  3.Minor S.Delphina Sabu,
                  D/o Late Sabu James.
                  4.Mrs.J.Alphonsa James,
                  W/o James Joseph,

                  5.J.James Joseph,
                  S/o Joseph,

                  All are residing at No.2,
                  Sri Balaji Nagar, 4th Street,
                  Katpadi, Vellore 622 007.
                  (Minor 2nd and 3rd petitioners, rep.by next friend/
                  Natural Guardian Mother the 1st petitioner)         ..Petitioners/Appellants

                                                                /versus/
                  1.Mrs.R.Kamala,
                  W/o Ramalingam,
                  No.64E,Thiruvalluvar Street,
                  Tharapadavedu, Katpadi,
                  Vellore-7.

                  2.The Divisional Manager,
                  United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
                  Office at No.46-51, T.K.M.Complex,
                  Katpadi Road, Vellore.                                ..Respondents/Respondents

                  Prayer in C.M.A.No.3835 of 2019:                      Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been
                  filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1888 to modify the judgment
                  and decree thereby allowing the full compensation of Rs.9,07,00,000/-.
                                  For Appellants         :Mr.MA.P.Thangavel
                                  For Respondents        :Mr.S.Arunkumar for R2
                                                         Not Ready Notice for R1



                  3/27



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm )
                                                 COMMON JUDGMENT

Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the award passed

by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions

Court, Vellore in M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2011, dated 30.11.2016.

2. On 11.08.2010 at about 12.00 hours, one Mr.Sabu James aged

about 37 years, who was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing

Registration No:TN-23-AV 4732, sustained injuries, when an auto bearing

Registration No:TN-23-AB 7585 driven rash and negligently by its driver

was hit the motorcycle opposite to Vishnu Theatre on Vellore to Katpadi

Road. Sabu James was taken to CMC hospital, Vellore for treatment. He was

treated as an inpatient for 28 days, but succumbed to the injuries.

3. The wife, two minor children and parents of Sabu James laid a

petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the auto driver

Mr.Ganesh and the insurer of the vehicle, M/s United India Insurance Co.,

Ltd. alleging that they are all dependants of the deceased Sabu James, who

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was running a transport

business and a landlord, besides being a Senior Manager Channel Accounts-

ADC & RFID India and Subcontinents (ISC) Enterprises Mobility Business

in a Motorola Company. His monthly income was around Rs.3,85,000/- per

month. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate

a sum of Rs.9,07,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The Insurance Company filed a counter, denying the liability to

compensate the claimants. According to the Insurance Company, the police

registered a false case of motor accident belatedly on 18.08.2010, as if

Ganesh, the auto driver, rashly and negligently drove his auto and caused

accident on 11.08.2010. It is a collusive claim instituted jointly by the

claimants and the first respondent Mr.Ganesh (Auto Driver). The FIR was

registered, after 7 days of the alleged accident. The vehicle alleged to have

been involved in the accident was sent for Motor Vehicle Inspection after 68

days. The deceased Sabu James did not sustain injuries in the road accident

as alleged in the FIR or in the claim petition. The motorcycle in which Sabu

James travelled as pillion rider has not insured under the second respondent.

Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) claimants. The claim petition is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties

namely, the owner of the motorcycle and its insurer. The quantum of

compensation claimed is untenable.

5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, 3 witnesses and

26 documents were filed. On behalf of the second respondent, two witnesses

and 4 documents were filed.

6. On behalf of the claimants, the father of the deceased was

examined as PW-1 to prove the earning capacity of the deceased and the

dependency of the claimants. The rider of the motorcycle in which the

deceased was travelling as the pillion was examined as PW-2. The Senior

Specialist in the HR Department of Mortorola Company, which is the

employer of the deceased was examined as PW-3.

7. The first respondent, Ganesh, who in writing informed the

insurance company that he was not the cause for the accident and was

acquitted in the criminal case, did not support the case of the insurance

company, when he summoned to give evidence. He in his proof affidavit

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) denied his involvement in the accident, but during the cross examination,

turned turtle.

8. On assessment of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the

accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the auto driver/the first

respondent. The earning capacity of the deceased was fixed based on the

salary slips and income tax returns. After adding 50% towards future

prospects and deducting 1/4th for personal expenses, it awarded a total

compensation of Rs.2,99,38,875/- as compensation.

9. The Insurance company has preferred C.M.A.No.132 of 2018

challenging the award fixing liability on the insurance company. The

claimants have preferred C.M.A.No.3835 of 2019, being aggrieved by the

restriction of the claim from Rs.9,07,00,000/- to Rs.2,99,38,875/-.

10. Mr.Arun Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the

Insurance Company submitted that, the enquiry conducted by the Insurance

company through its investigator had revealed that the auto mentioned in the

FIR was not involved in the accident. The FIR was registered after 7 days

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) and was based on falsehood, but it was taken up for investigation. But then,

the owner of the auto (RW-1) and the driver of the auto (RW-2) had come

out with truth and given letter disowning the involvement of the auto in the

said accident. The said letters were marked as Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2

respectively. However, when they were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 after

filing proof affidavit in support of the insurance company, they turned hostile

in the cross examination fearing local police. The complaint (Ex.R-4) before

the CBCID police against the claimants for creating false FIR to get

compensation illegally was not investigated by CBCID for reason best

known. However, the criminal case in C.C.No.79 of 2011 in which the first

respondent, Ganesh, tried for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 (A)

IPC ended in acquittal. The judgment in C.C.No.79 of 2011 marked as

Ex.R-3 was not considered by the Tribunal for fixing the negligence.

11. Regarding the quantum, the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in including the conveyance

allowance, medical reimbursement, car lease allowance and leave travel

allowance as loss of income. These allowances are given for personal

expenditures incurred. The discrepancies in the Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) regarding the actual income of the deceased. The pay slips Ex.P-25 of the

deceased were not in tune with the income tax returns marked as Ex.P-21 to

Ex.P-23. Hence, he submitted that the false claim with unreliable documents

has been entertained by the Tribunal, leading to passing of an erroneous

award which needs to be interfered with.

12. Per contral the learned counsel appearing for the claimants

Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is

abysmally low ignoring the evidence of the income capacity of the deceased.

The average income of the deceased at the time of his death was about

Rs.3,96,266/- per month. The Form-16 of the Income Tax Department and

the medical bills furnished by the claimants were not properly appreciated by

the Tribunal. The income of the deceased from the other sources, like,

agricultural land and transport business, was not included by the Tribunal.

The reason for excluding that income is not sustainable. The claimants in

their appeal also found fault in the award for not applying proper multiplier

taking into the age of the deceased and the deduction for personal

expenditure as well the rate of future prospect.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm )

13. According to the learned counsel appearing for the claimants,

all allowances given to the employee are to be included in the basic pay.

Whereas the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that

allowances like, House Rent Allowance ( HRA ) and Dearness Allowances

and GPF alone are to be included and not other perks, whatever name they

are called. The allowances like leave travel allowance, medical allowance

and car lease allowance are given for the personal comfort of the employee.

They are not enjoyed by the dependants, hence, they are to be excluded from

computation of income.

14. Heard the submissions made by respective counsels appearing

for the Insurance Company and the claimants. Records relevant for arriving

at the decision were perused and judgement citations were analysed, in the

light of the rival submissions made by the learned counsels.

15. Sabu James on the date of accident (11.08.2010) was about 37

years. The First Information about the accident had reached the concern

police station only on 18.08.2010. The informant is PW-2, Mr.Sivakumar,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) S/o Balakrishnan. In his complaint as well as in the oral evidence, he has

explained the cause for delay in lodging the complaint. The Tribunal has

accepted the explanation since it is a plausible explanation. This Court on

reading the FIR, which is marked as Ex.P-1, finds that, intimation about the

Medico Legal Case had been forwarded by the hospital through a memo, but

it had not reached the concern jurisdictional police station (Viruthampet

Police Station). Hence, PW-2, after coming to know that FIR was not

registered went to the North Police Station, which had received the memo

and then, gone to the Viruthampatu Police Station on 18.08.2010. The

complaint is against the driver of the auto bearing registration No: TN 23 AB

7585.

16. Soon after the accident, Sabu James was taken to CMC

Hospital, Vellore and was admitted as inpatient. Ex.P-2, the discharge

summary given by the hospital gives a clear picture about the case history

which reads as below:-

Case history:

“Thirty six years old Sabu James was brought to casualty one hour following an alleged history of road traffic accident. While travelling in a two wheeler he was hit by a three wheeler at 12.00 pm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) on 11/08/2010. He was not under the influence of alcohol nor was he wearing a safety helmet. There was history of loss of consciousness for 15 minutes following which patient had been in altered sensorium. There was history of nasal bleed and oral bleeding. Three was no history of ear bleed, seizures or vomiting. He was a known case of chronic liver disease for 10 years. He was a chronic smoker. There was no history of any other illnesses or surgeries. “

17. The report says, he was admitted on 11.08.2010. After clinical

examination, a CT scan showed a right frontal temporal and parietal

contusion with diffuse sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Initially, he was treated

conservatively. Since there was no improvement, in view of marked obesity,

poor oxygen saturation, history of chronic smoking, rheumatic arthritis and

alcohol related liver disease, an operation on right fronto-temporo-parietal

de-compressive craniectomy and evacuation of the temporal contusion under

general anaesthesia, done on 13.08.2010 with a high risk consent. He

developed cardio-respiratory arrest on 04.09.2010 at 9.30 hours from which

he could not be resuscitated. He was declared Dead at 9.50 hours on

04.09.2010. The summary extracted above proves the fact that Sabu James

met with an accident on 11.08.2010 and sustained injury. He was

immediately taken to the CMC Hospital for treatment. To the hospital staff, it

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) was reported that Sabu James while travelling in a motorcycle hit by a three

wheeler and sustained injury. Thus, undoubtedly, the time, place and the

manner in which the accident occurred in well spelt in the earliest document

recorded by the hospital authority. When the owner of the three wheeler

(RW-1) and the driver of the three wheeler (RW-2) had spoken about the

involvement of the vehicle in the accident, though earlier they have given

letters Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 contrary to it, in a motor accident claim petition, in

the absence of contrary evidence, the content of the FIR (Ex.P-1) and the

testimony of RW-1 and RW-2 shall prevail over the letters Ex.R-1 and

Ex.R-2. Though the learned counsel for Insurance Company referring the

MVI report Ex.P-4, which has certified that there was no damage to the auto

and that the delay in lodging FIR was caused to find RW-2 to admit the

accident, in view of failure on the part of the insurance company to

substantiate the said allegation and contrarily, on the side of the claimants

the rider of the two wheeler in which the victim travelled on the pillion had

come out with a specific evidence narrating the manner in which the accident

took place. He being the eye witness to the occurrence and the first informant

to the police, his evidence cannot be brushed aside. Further, RW-2 the driver

of the auto which was involved in the accident had admitted in the cross

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) examination about his involvement in the accident. These facts leads to the

conclusion that the first respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle

is liable for compensating the accident victim. The vehicle being insured, the

second respondent has to indemnify the first respondent. Hence, we hold that

the finding of the Tribunal fixing the responsibility and liability on the owner

of the three wheeler and its insurer, is upheld.

18. The medical evidence Ex.P-2, indicates that the cause of death

is not solely due to the injury sustained in the accident. The contributory

factors for the death is primarily failure to wear protective helmet. Obesity,

chronic smoking and alcohol related liver disease for past 10 years. Frequent

episodes after operation due to the above contributory reasons had prevented

the injured from returning to the recovery path, despite the operation. This

fact is bound to be taken into consideration, since the claim of compensation

has to be tested on various factors including whether the accident was the

only cause for the death or whether some other factors contributed for the

death or accelerated the death. In this case, obviously from the medical

record, we find that the death is not direct impact of the accident, but some

other internal and external factors had contributed for the death. This finding

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) of the Court is fortified by the final opinion of the Doctor who conducted the

autopsy, which says, “would appear to have died of complications of head

injury”.

19. It is also appropriate to place on record at this juncture, the two

wheeler TN 23 AV 4732 in which the deceased was travelling on the pillion

was not insured. Obviously, for that reason, the claimants had not impleaded

the owner of the two wheeler, in spite of specific objection raised by the

Insurance Company of the three wheeler.

20. As for the earning capacity of the deceased, the claimants had

not produced evidence for income of Sabu James, through other sources

except the salary income from M/s Motorola Company. Therefore, the

Tribunal had no occasion to consider the income of the deceased from other

sources like, agricultural income, which requires evidence to prove

ownership of agricultural lands and income derived from it through any

cultivating/agricultural activities. Similarly, there is no evidence placed by

the claimants to prove the victim’s income from transport business. Hence,

the Tribunal has rightly taken into account only the salary income of Sabu

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) James. To commute the loss of income, the appointment order Ex.P-13

which mentions the total emoluments and perks, the salary certificate

Ex.P-19, Consolidated Annual salary particulars for the period from

08.07.2008 to 04.09.2010 marked as Ex.P-20, Form-16 and Form-12BA for

the Assessment Year(in short “AY”) 2009-2010, AY 2010–2011 and AY

2011-2012, relied by the claimants. The monthly pay slips of the deceased

over the period are marked as Ex.P-24 and Ex.P-25. The bank statement is

marked as Ex.P-26. To show the claimants are dependants of the deceased,

the legal heir certificate is marked as Ex.P-6.

21. The age of the deceased and the relationship between the

deceased and the claimants is proved through documents. The claimants had

sought Rs.10 lakhs towards medical expenses. Ex.P-7 is only document

relied by the claimants in support of the claim under the head “medical

expenses”. Since the claimants covered under the ‘Medi-claim Policy’ and

got reimbursement of the medical expenses, the Tribunal has declined to

consider the medical bills Ex.P-7 produced by the claimants, which shows

that Rs.36,088/- spent towards medicine and hospital care. In their appeal,

the claimants contended that medi-claim being a premium paid benefit, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) same cannot be taken into account to decline compensation.

22. In this regard, the Tribunal, after considering the

communication of the CMC Hospital to the TPA Ltd, Chennai, the company

which has provided medi-claim cover to the deceased and his family and got

the bill reimbursed, had observed that the claimants have not produced any

evidence to show that they incurred expenses more than the bill amount

which has been covered under the medi-claim policy and paid by the

Company. On relying the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered

in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance –vs- Ganpal Rai Sehgal and Ors

reported in [2013 ACJ 2366] and National Insurance Co Ltd –vs-

Deepmala Goel and others reported in [2013 ACJ 2382], the claim towards

medical expenses, which has been reimbursed under medi-claim policy, was

declined.

23. We confirm the view of the Tribunal, since we find no

evidence to show that the claimants incurred expense other than the amount

shown in the bills marked as Ex.P-7 and in the light of the fact that, the

amount shown in Ex.P-7 has already been reimbursed under the Medi-claim

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) Policy. Though the policy is a premium paid policy, from the salary bills

marked as Ex.P-24, it is an admitted fact that the premium is paid by the

employer deducting Rs.200/- p.m from the salary of the employee (the

deceased). Hence, the said deduction of Rs.200/- p.m alone has to be taken

into consideration for commutation of loss of income. No additional

compensation need to be paid towards medical expenses, which is covered

under the medi-claim policy and been admitted reimbursed by the company

which has provided cover for the medical expenses.

24. According to the claimants, at the time of death, Sabu James

was employed in Motorola Company as Senior Manager Channal Accounts

and ADC and RFID India and Subcontinents (ISC) Enterprises Mobility

Business. To prove this fact, the claimants have examined Tmt.Monachadha,

who is the Senior Specialist, HR Department in Motorola Solution India

Limited. The pay slips and certificate issued by the Motorola Solution India

Limited are marked as Ex.P19 to Ex.P25. The Tribunal relying upon Ex.P19

had fixed the annual salary of the deceased as below:

                                  Basic                              :Rs.864000
                                  LTA                                :Rs.178848
                                  HRA                                :Rs.596160






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm )
                                  Special Allowance                 :Rs.402312
                                  Medical Allowance                 :Rs.15000
                                  PF                                :Rs.103680
                                  Gross Total                       :Rs.2160000

25. Fixing the Annual Income of the deceased at the rate of

Rs.21,60,000/- and deducting leave travel allowances and provident fund

contribution, the loss of earning arrived to Rs.18,77,472/- (Rs.2160000-

Rs.178848-Rs.103680). Applying the dictum laid by the Rajesh v. Rajbir

Singh and others reported in [(2009(2) TN MAC 36 (SC)], 50% of the

income added towards future prospects, income tax and surcharge, as per the

Income Tax Act deducted. Also, 1/4th of the annual income deducted towards

the personal expenditure of the deceased. Thus, on applying the multiplier

“15” based on the age, a sum of Rs.2,97,01,875/- fixed as compensation

towards the loss of income. In addition, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first

claimant (wife) for loss of consortium; another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss

of love and affection in respect of the claimants 2 to 5; a sum of Rs.25,000/-

towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses

and Rs.2,000/- for damages to cloths and articles was awarded, in sum a sum

of Rs.2,99,38,875/- was awarded as compensation which has been

distributed among the claimants in the following manner:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm )

(i)1st claimant/wife :Rs.1,00,00,000-00

(ii)2nd and 3rd claimants/ minor children of the deceased :Rs. 50,00,000-00 each

(iii)4th and 5th claimants/parents of the deceased shall share the balance amount equally.

26. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that

the claimants have preferred an appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Since the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon Ex.P19 for computation of loss

of income, instead of taking into consideration the latest pay slip and Income

Tax Returns filed, the claimants will be entitled for compensation around

Rs.9,00,00,000/-. If the latest salary particulars is taken into account without

excluding the allowances which are to be considered while computing loss of

income as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court

27. The Tribunal, while computing the loss of income, had stated

earlier relied upon Ex.P19 and the testimony of PW-3 was working as the

Senior Specialist, HR Department in Motorola Solution India Limited. On

examining Ex.P19, it is the appointment order issued by the Motorola

Solution India Limited to Suba James on 24.06.2008. This appointment

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) order indicates that on appointing him in the company as Channal Account

Manager the annual cost to the company (CTC) will be Rs.21,60,000/-

annexture to this appointment order contains the details of the salary

structure and benefits. The execution of leave travel allowance and provident

fund amount from the annual income is the point of contention between the

parties. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants relying upon the

judmgent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company

Limited v. Indira Srivastava and others reported in [(2008)AIR SC 845]

and the judgment rendered in Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Company

Limited reported in [2024 SCC Online SC 1872] contended that monthly

salary of the deceased employee would constitute salary and perks which

were paid by the employer for computation of compensation. The

compensation means just compensation. Hence, the allowance under the

heads of transport, house rent, provident fund have to be included in the

salary of the employee, while applying the component of a raise in income

due to future prospects to determine the dependency factor.

28. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant that for compounding the loss of income, the latest income tax

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) returns and the latest pay slips of the deceased ought to have been

considered. If so considered, the monthly income for computation of loss of

income should be as under:-

                                  Basic salary                        Rs.82,425.60
                                  House Rent Allowance                :Rs.56,873.67
                                  Special/Conv.Allowance              :Rs.13,587.00
                                  Leave Travel Allowance              :Rs.17,062.08
                                  Medical                             :Rs. 1,250.00
                                  Car Lease Allowance                 :Rs.24,975.00
                                                                      -------------------
                                                       Total          :Rs.1,96,173-35
                                                                      -------------------

29. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company submitted that for fixing the loss of income, the income tax of

Rs.36,014/-, the car lease allowance of Rs.24,975.00 and the professional tax

of Rs.200/- should be excluded, while the last drawn salary is taken into

consideration. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company, the car lease allowance of Rs.24,975.00 is deducted by the

employer from the salary. It is of the personal in nature which extinguishes

along with the individual. Therefore, the same cannot be construed as income

earned.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm )

30. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing for the claimants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the

Insurance Company, we are of the view that, for the proper computation of

of loss of income, it must be based on the last's month salary slip of the

deceased. The other allowances such as House Rent Allowance, Leave

Travel Allowance, Medical Allowance, Car Lease Allowance have to be

included in the salary component. Whereas the Special\Conveyance

allowance being totally related to the individual, depending on his travel, it

is not income, but a reimbursement of expenditure. Therefore, a sum of

Rs.13,587.00 given under the head of Special/Conveyance Allowance has to

be excluded. Therefore, from out of the income for computing loss of

income, Income Tax of Rs.36,014/- and Professional Tax of Rs.200/- are

deducted from the gross salary of Rs.1,96,173.35. After deduction of

Rs.36,214/- from Rs.1,96,173.35, the actual loss of income shall be

Rs.1,59,959.35 rounded off to Rs.1,60,000/-.

31. Being employed in a private company with a fixed pay scale

and having died at the age of 37 years, towards future prospects, 50% of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) income (i.e.) Rs.80,000/- (Rs.1,60,000 x ½) is to be added. Then, the loss of

income due to the death of the deceased will be Rs.2,40,000/-(Rs.1,60,000 +

Rs.80,000). Out of which, after deducting 1/4th ((i.e.) Rs.60,000) for the

personal expenditure, the salary for computation of loss of income

Rs.1,80,000/-p.m. The total loss of income, after applying multiplier “15”

will be around Rs.3,24,00,000/- per annum(Rs.1,80,000 x 12 x 15).

32. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

towards loss of consortium; Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection;

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards transport

expenses; and Rs.2000/- towards damages to cloths and articles. This Court

is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under

the above said heads.

33. As a result, the modified award of compensation to the

claimants is as below:

1.Loss of Income :Rs.3,24,00,000-00

2.Loss of consortium :Rs. 1,00,000-00

3.Loss of love and affection :Rs. 1,00,000-00

4.Funeral Expenses :Rs. 25,000-00

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm )

5.Transport Expenses :Rs. 10,000-00

6.Damages to cloths and articles :Rs. 2,000-00

-----------------------

                                                       Total          :Rs.3,26,37,000-00
                                                                      -----------------------

34. The apportionment of the modified award is as follows:

                  (i)The first claimant/wife                          :Rs.1,00,00,000/-

                  (ii)2nd and 3rd claimants                           :Rs. 75,00,000/- each

                  (iii)4th and 5th claimants                          :Rs. 38,18,500/-each

35. In the result, C.M.A.No.3835 of 2019 filed by the

Claimants/appellants is partly allowed with costs and the claimants are

entitled for the modified award of Rs.3,26,37,000-00 as compensation.

C.M.A.No.132 of 2018 filed by the United India Insurance Company is

dismissed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

modified award amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of

filing of the petition till the date of realisation within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount already

deposited if any before the Court. The claimants are entitled to get the

modified award amount as per the apportionment made by this Court. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 10:20:45 pm ) award amount of the minor claimants 2 and 3 shall be deposited in a

Nationalised Bank, in a fixed deposit till the minors attain majority and the

minor claimants' guardian is entitled to receive the accrued interest once in a

three months directly from the bank for the maintenance of the minor

claimants.