Madras High Court
Farija vs Muthuselvan on 31 October, 2025
CMA No. 2942 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI
CMA No. 2942 of 2025
1. FARIJA
W/o. Sahul Hameed, D.No. 16/23,
Metha Nagar, Thiruvakavundanur,
Near Byepass, Salem District 636 005
2. Sahul Hameed
S/o. Mohamad Ibrahim, D.No. 16/23,
Metha Nagar, Thiruvakavundanur,
Near Byepass, Salem District 636 005
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Muthuselvan
S/o. Bhojaiya, G.Usilampatti, Andipatti
Taluk, Theni District 625 517
2.Sumalatha
W/o. Palkannan East Street, Rajathani,
Andipatti, Theni District 625 512
3.THE IFFCO TOKIO General
Insurance Co Ltd.
No. 82, 2nd Floor, Chandrakanthi
Nagar, Ponmeni Byepass Road,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
CMA No. 2942 of 2025
Ponmeni, Madurai District 625 016
Respondent(s)
PRAYER:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act praying to allow the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and enhance the
award in the Order dated 16.12.2022 made in MCOP.NO. 528/2022, on the
file of the Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem.
For Appellant(s): C.Paraneedharan
For Respondent(s): Mrs.S. Vasavi Sridevi
for R1 & R2
M/s.B.Sivakollappan For R3
JUDGMENT
By consent of both sides, the appeal is heard and disposed of at the
stage of admission itself.
2. Not being satisfied with the Award dated 16.12.2022 made in
MCOP.No.523 of 2022 by the learned Special District Court (dealing with
MCOP Cases), Salem, the parents of one Ajmal Khan have preferred the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation.
3. The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
ranking before the trial court.
4. The facts leading to filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as
follows:
(i) On 09.10.2021, at about 03.40 p.m., when the deceased son of the
appellants viz., Ajmalkhan, was proceeding in his Bajaj Pulsar two wheeler
bearing Regn.No.TN-60 AU-9822 from west to east in Uppukottai Road, near
Sadayalpatti Division Road, a Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-28 BC-9742,
which was coming from north to south direction, driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner hit against the two wheeler driven by the deceased
Ajmal Khan. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries on the
back of his head and succumbed to injuries on the spot.
(ii) The respondents 1 to 3 are respectively, driver, owner and insurer
of the Tipper Lorry.
(iii) Since the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent
nd
driving of the driver of the Tipper Lorry, the 2 respondent-owner of the
rd
offending vehicle and the 3 respondent -insurer of the offending vehicle, both
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
(iv) Hence, the claimants have made a claim petition before the Special
District Judge for MCOP Cases, Salem, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in
M.C.O.P.No.528 of 2022 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against the
respondents stating that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 25
years and was working as a painting contractor and was earning Rs.25,000/-
per month. Due to the accident, since they have lost their son, they have
lost their only source of income.
(v) Refuting the averments made in the claim petition, counter was filed
by the insurance company denying that the accident was caused due to the
st
rash and negligent driving of the 1 respondent, but it was caused due to the
rash and careless driving of the two wheeler driven by the deceased. It also
denied the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased, age, educational
qualification, avocation and income of the deceased and compensation
claimed under various heads claiming that they are all subject to strict proof.
(vi) Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, PW1 and PW2 were
examined and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked. On behalf of the
respondents, neither any witness was examined nor documents were
marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
(vii) The tribunal, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side counsels, awarded
compensation of Rs.11,30,000/- with proportionate costs to the claimants
along with 7.5% interest p.a., from the date of petition. The Tribunal directed
the respondents to pay the abovesaid compensation amount jointly and
severally.
(viii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants under
various heads is as follows;
Heads Compensation awarded by
the Tribunal
(Rs.)
For Loss of dependency Rs. 10,80,000/-
For Loss of Estate Rs. 25,000/-
For Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs. 11,30,000/-
(ix) The apportionment made by the tribunal to the claimants out of the
compensation awarded, is as follows:
st
1 claimant - Rs.8,30,000/-
nd
2 claimant - Rs.3,00,000/-
5. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
claimants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would contend that the
deceased was working as a painting contractor and was earning a sum of
Rs.25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the
deceased inclusive of future prospectus at Rs.10,000/- which is very less.
The learned counsel for the appellants would also contend that for loss of
consortium, no amount was granted by the tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the tribunal has
rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and
accordingly arrived at compensation under the head loss of dependency. He
further submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other
heads are also just and reasonable. Hence, the award of compensation
granted by the tribunal need not be interfered with by this court and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
The manner in which, the accident took place is not in dispute.
10. It is the evidence of PW1-Farija that her son Ajmal Khan was
working as a Painting Contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per
month. To substantiate the details regarding the avocation and income of the
deceased, no document was marked. As per Ex.P.2-Accident Register, the
age of the deceased is fixed as 24 years. The date of the accident is
09.10.2021. In consideration of the above said details, the income of the
deceased Ajmal Khan is fixed as Rs.17,000/- per month.
11. The Honourable Supreme Court has standardised the details of
future prospectus in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi (2017 2 TN MAC 609 SC), wherein, the Supreme Court has
held that for the age group of persons below 40 years, who was not holding
permanent job, 40% future prospectus is to be added with the income of the
deceased while computing the loss of dependency. In the light of the above
judgment of the Apex Court, 40% is added to the income of the deceased
towards future prospectus.
12. In this case, the deceased Ajmal Khan died as a bachelor. As per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 2 TNMAC 1 SC), 50%
has to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the
deceased. Accordingly, 50% of his salary is deducted towards personal and
living expenses.
13. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (cited supra), the
claimants being the parents of the deceased Ajmal Khan are entitled for
40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, this Court awards a sum of
Rs.40,000/- to each claimant towards loss of consortium to the parents of the
deceased son/claimants. Thus, by selecting the relevant multiplier 18m, the
following formula emerges:
17000 + 40% (future prospectus) – ½ x 12 x 18 = Rs.25,48,800/-
14. As regards other heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate,
the amounts awarded by the tribunal appears to be acceptable and
reasonable, hence the same needs no interference by this Court. Thus, the
compensation granted by the tribunal under the above heads are hereby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
confirmed.
15. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is re-worked and the
same is tabulated hereunder:
Heads Compensation Compensation awarded by
awarded by the this Court
Tribunal
For Loss of Rs. 10,80,000/- Rs.25,48,800/- - enhanced
dependency
For Loss of Estate Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- - confirmed
For Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- - confirmed
For Loss of consortium -- Rs. 80,000/- - granted
Total Rs. 11,30,000/- Rs. 26,77,000/- (enhanced)
16. Thus, this Court awards Rs.26,77,000/- towards compensation for
the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realisation. Out of the compensation awarded by this
st
Court of Rs.26,77,000/-, this Court awards Rs.16,77,000/- to the 1
st nd st
claimant/1 appellant and Rs.10,00,000/- to the 2 claimant/1 appellant.
17. In the result,
• The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
• The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.11,30,000/- to Rs.26,77,000/-.
• The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation of Rs.26,77,000/- awarded by this Court to the
credit of MCOP.No.528 of 2022 on the file of Special District
Judge, MCOP Tribunal at Salem, along with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of
realisation, (excluding the period of default, if any) less the
amount, if any deposited within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
• On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are at liberty to
withdraw the amount now determined by this Court, as per the
apportionment made by this court along with interest and
costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by
filing application before the Tribunal.
• The claimants are directed to pay the court fee for the
enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal
shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of the
certified copy showing proof of payment of court fee by the
claimants/appellants.
msr 31-10-2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
To
1.Muthuselvan
S/o. Bhojaiya, G.Usilampatti, Andipatti
Taluk, Theni District 625 517
2.Sumalatha
W/o. Palkannan East Street, Rajathani,
Andipatti, Theni District 625 512
3.THE IFFCO TOKIO General
Insurance Co Ltd.
No. 82, 2nd Floor, Chandrakanthi
Nagar, Ponmeni Byepass Road,
Ponmeni, Madurai District 625 016
4. The Special District Judge,
MCOP Tribunal, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
R.KALAIMATHI J.
msr
31-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 03:46:40 pm )
