Madras High Court
The Manager vs Rani on 11 September, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
CMA(MD). No.191 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
CMA. (MD). No.191 of 2020
and CMP(MD) No.3207 of 2020
The Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
3rd Floor, No.29 North Usman Road
T.Nagar, Chennai. ... Appellant
v.
1.Rani
2.Sivakumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in
MCOP No.1006 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal/Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli dated 29.03.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayaraj for R1
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:10:42 pm )
CMA(MD). No.191 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment
and decree passed in MCOP No.1006 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal/Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli dated
29.03.2019.
2. The facts in brief is as follows:
On 19.11.2014, at about 4.30 a.m., the son of the first respondent
Anburaj and his friend were proceeding in a TATA SUMO Car bearing
registration No.TN 20 BJ 1131 at GST Pallavaram near Megalaya Hotel
in the left side of the road. At that time, due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the car, the car dashed in a tree, due to which, the
son of the first respondent died on the spot. Pursuant to the said
accident, a case in Crime No.815/2014 for the offence under Sections
297, 337 and 304(A) IPC on the file of the Chrompet Traffic
Investigation Police Station, Chennai. The second respondent is the
owner of the vehicle. For the death of the son, the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:10:42 pm )
respondent/claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming
75,00,000/- as compensation along with 24% interest.
3. In order to prove the case of the claimant, before the tribunal,
P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and 9 documents were exhibited. Neither any
witness was examined nor any documents were exhibited on the side of
the appellant and the 2nd respondent.
4. The tribunal, upon considering the oral and documentary
evidence, had come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Based on
the oral and documentary evidence let in before the tribunal, an amount
of Rs.28,30,008/- along with 7.5% interest has been awarded towards
compensation and appellant insurance company and the owner of the
vehicle are directed to pay the compensation. Challenging the said
compensation, the appellant is before this Court.
5. Though the appellant has no grievance with regard to the
liability, they are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:10:42 pm )
particularly, with regard to the deduction made towards personal
expenses of the deceased and taking 50% as future prospects. He would
submit that the deceased is a Bachelor and instead of deducting 50%
towards personal expenses, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd, which is
erroneous. He would further submit that with regard to future prospects,
as per Pranay Sethi's case, claimant is entitled only for 40%, however,
50% of the income of the deceased has been taken into consideration
towards future prospects, which is also found to be erroneous. On these
grounds, the learned counsel prays for interference.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would
submit that the Tribunal, after analyzing the salary certificate Ex.P9
coupled with the evidence of the employer P.W.3 and the
claimant/mother is a dependant of the deceased, had rightly come to the
conclusion and had granted Rs.28,30,008/-, which is found to be just and
reasonable and hence, prays for dismissal.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:10:42 pm )
8. It is true that the deceased is a bachelor and an Engineering
Graduate and was earning a sum of Rs.12,963/- per month at the time of
accident. It is also not disputed that the mother is the only dependant of
the deceased. The appellant is not challenging the award of the Tribunal
on liability and quantum alone is challenged, however, with respect to
the future prospects and the deduction made towards personal expenses
of the deceased. The deceased is 24 years at the time of accident. As per
the decision rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi
and other [2017 (2) TNMAC 609(SC)], the deduction made towards
future prospects is only 40%. Since the Tribunal has deducted 50%
towards future prospects, the same is liable to be interfered with.
Accordingly, 40% of the salary is taken in to consideration for the future
prospects instead of 50%.
9. As far as deduction made towards personal expenses is
concerned, the Tribunal has taken 1/3rd reduction towards personal
expenses, however, since the deceased is a bachelor and aged 24, 50% is
to be deducted towards personal expenses, which is just and reasonable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:10:42 pm )
Accordingly, towards personal expenses, instead of 1/3rd deduction, 50%
deduction is taken into account.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part
and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from
Rs.28,30,008/- to Rs.19,89,984/- as follows:
Heads Award of the Modified by this Court
tribunal (Rs.) (Rs.) = (Total)
Monthly income + 12,963+6481.50 12963+5185.2 =18148.20
future prospects =19444.50/- (Future prospects 40%)
(future prospects
50%)
Income - personal 19444.50-6481.5=1 18148.20-9074 = 9074
expenses 2,963/- (50% reduction towards
1/3rd reduction for personal expenses)
personal expenses)
Loss of income is 28,00,008.00 (9074*12*18) = 19,59,984
arrived at
Loss of estate 15,000 15,000 (unaltered)
Funeral expenses 15,000 15,000 (unaltered)
19,89,984.00
The appellant and the 2nd respondent shall deposit the entire modified
award amount along with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the
date of deposit, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited, if any. The
claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire modified award amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:10:42 pm )
along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already
withdrawn, if any. The appellant/insurance company is permitted to
withdraw the excess amount, if any, along with interest. No costs.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.V.,J] [P.V.M.,J]
11.09.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/
Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli
2.VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:10:42 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
P.VADAMALAI, J.
RR
ORDER
IN
Date : 11.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 06:10:42 pm )
