[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M.Palanisamy vs Ramarajan. K on 26 February, 2026
CMA No. 1925 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.M.A.No. 1925 of 2025
1. M.Palanisamy,
S/o.Maniyan,
residing at No.1326 Therku theru,
Nelladikuppam,
Marungur and Post,
Panruti Taluk - 607 103.
2. Tamilarasi,
W/o.M.Palanisamy,
Residing at No.1326, Therku theru,
Nelladikuppam, Marungur and Post,
Panruti Taluk - 607 103.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Ramarajan. K.
S/o.Kannan,
No.2/49, East Street,
Keerimedu, Thaduthakondur,
Ullundurpet Taluk- 607 203.
2. The Chief Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Reliance House, 6th Floor,
No.6 Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 006.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree dated 25-02-2025 passed in
M.C.O.P.No.185 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Panruti.
For Appellant(s): Ms.Ramya V.Rao
For Respondent(s): Mr.P. Suresh Srinivasan
for R2
R1-Notice Dispensed With
Judgment
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Sub Court), Panruti in M.C.O.P. No.185 of 2020 dated 25.02.2025.
2.The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 22.04.2020 at
about 7.10 a.m., the deceased Jeyaraman, aged about 26 years, was riding a
Honda Dio motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-CX-8611 on the
Panruti–Salem main road. The injured claimant was travelling as a pillion rider.
At that time, a TVS Suzuki motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-15-C-8124,
driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from the
opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased. Due to the
impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, filed the claim petition
seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
3.The second respondent / Insurance Company resisted the claim by
contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased
himself and further disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased.
4.Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of
the offending vehicle belonging to the first respondent and insured with the
second respondent. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased
at Rs.15,000/-, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 1/2 towards
personal expenses, applied the multiplier 17, and awarded compensation of
Rs.22,63,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants
have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
learned Tribunal, though correctly fixing the negligence on the respondent’s
vehicle, failed to award just and adequate compensation. The deceased
Jayaraman was working as a lorry driver in Panruti Kumaran Transport and was
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
earning Rs.50,000/- per month and had also completed Mechanical Engineering.
However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at only Rs.15,000/- per month,
which is meagre considering the accident occurred on 22.04.2020. The
appellants had produced a salary certificate marked as Ex.P14, but the Tribunal
rejected it without assigning valid reasons. Considering the deceased’s
qualification and employment, his income ought to have been fixed at least at
Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal also failed to follow the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding fixation of notional income and
determination of just compensation.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
submitted that the Tribunal has already granted a just and reasonable
compensation and therefore the award does not warrant interference.
7.This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
8. In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the
first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Therefore, the liability
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
to pay compensation was correctly fixed on the respondents. However, the
grievance of the appellants is only with regard to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, which is found to be inadequate. The deceased
Jayaraman was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and was working as
a lorry driver in Panruti Kumaran Transport. The appellants contended that he
was earning Rs.50,000/- per month and also possessed a Diploma in Mechanical
Engineering. In support of the said contention, the appellants produced the
salary certificate marked as Ex.P14. However, the Tribunal, without assigning
proper reasons, rejected the said document and fixed the notional income of the
deceased only at Rs.15,000/- per month. Considering the year of accident, i.e.,
22.04.2020, and the nature of work performed by the deceased as a lorry driver,
the income fixed by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. It is well
settled that even in the absence of strict documentary proof, the Tribunal ought
to fix a reasonable income based on the nature of employment, educational
qualification, and prevailing wage structure. The deceased having completed
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering would have certainly had the capacity to
earn a higher income and therefore, the income ought to have been fixed at least
at Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal further adopted the multiplier method
and after adding future prospects and deducting personal expenses, calculated
the loss of dependency. However, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under different conventional heads is comparatively lesser than the just
and reasonable compensation that ought to have been granted. Considering the
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
age of the deceased (26 years), the appropriate multiplier would be 17 and 40%
has to be added towards future prospects in view of the settled principles laid
down by the Supreme Court. After making necessary deductions towards
personal expenses and applying the multiplier, the compensation payable to the
appellants would be calculated as follows:
Sl. No Head Amount
1. Loss of dependency -Rs.25,70,400/-
2. Loss of love and affection -Rs.80,000/-
3. Funeral expenses -Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate / damages -Rs.15,000/-
------------------------------- ----------------
Total -Rs.26,80,400/-
Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.26,80,400/-.
9.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The 2 nd
respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation
amount of Rs.26,80,400/- with interest @7.5% per annum, less the amount
already deposited, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.185 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Panruti, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Judgment, if not deposited earlier. The claimants are not
entitled to get interest for the default period. On such deposit, the claimants are
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with proportionate accrued
interest and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal by making necessary
applications.
The claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for the compensation
amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall not disburse the amount till such
time as proof of payment of Court Fee has been produced by the claimants. No
costs.
26-02-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MPS
To
1.The Sub Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Panruti.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J.
MPS
26-02-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:03:41 pm )
