[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Vijayalakshmi on 20 January, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
2026:MHC:226
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20 / 01 / 2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A. NOS.1251 OF 2022 AND 1370 OF 2023
AND
C.M.P. NO.9211 OF 2022
IN
C.M.A. NO.1251 OF 2022
C.M.A. NO.1251 OF 2022
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Having Branch Office at No.5F,
Sachin Plaza Reddiyur,
Block No.1, Shriram Nagar,
Alagapuram, Salem – 636 004. ... Appellant /
2nd Respondent
Versus
1.Vijayalakshmi
2.Preethi
3.Kirankumar
(Respondents 2 and 3 are
declared as Major and their
Mother Respondent–1
Vijayalakshmi is discharged
from Guardianship of
Respondents 2 and 3 vide Court
Order dated January 20, 2026
made in CMP No.1282 of 2026
in CMA No.1251 of 2022)
Page No.1 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
4.Lakshmi @ Lakshmiammal ... Respondent 1 to 4/
Petitioners
5.Chandrasekar ... 5th Respondent /
1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated September
1, 2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1417 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel
For Respondent – 5 : Notice – Dispensed with
C.M.A. NO.1370 OF 2023
1.Vijayalakshmi
2.Preethi
3.Kirankumar
(Appellants 2 and 3 are declared
as Major and their Mother
Appellant–1 Vijayalakshmi is
discharged from Guardianship of
Appellants 2 and 3 vide Court
Order dated January 20, 2026
made in CMP No.1347 of 2026
in CMA No.1370 of 2023)
4.Lakshmi @ Lakshmiammal ... Appellants /
Petitioners
Versus
1.Chandrasekar
(Notice to Respondent 1 may be dispensed with
Page No.2 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
for the time being and separate petition is filed)
2.Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.5 F, Sachin Plaza Reddiyur,
Block No.1, Shriram Nagar,
Alagapuram, Salem – 636 004. ... Respondents /
Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to allow the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal and modify the Award dated September 1, 2021 passed in
M.C.O.P.No.1417 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem by enhancing the compensation
awarded thereby.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel
For Respondent – 1 : Notice – Dispensed with
For Respondent – 2 : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.Sakthivel, J.)
Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated September 1, 2021 passed by
'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District Court, Salem'
['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P.No.1417 of 2016, the second respondent
therein namely – Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, has
preferred C.M.A. No.1251 of 2022 seeking to set aside the same, while the
petitioners therein have preferred C.M.A. No.1370 of 2023 seeking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
enhancement of compensation.
2. As these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of one and the
same Award, they will be governed by this Common Judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.
PETITIONERS' CASE
4. The deceased - Jayaraman passed away in an accident that
occurred on February 27, 2016 at about 02.30 p.m. The petitioners 1 to 4
are his wife, two children and mother respectively.
4.1. On the fateful day, the deceased -Jayaraman was travelling on
Salem – Chennai National Highway along with his friends in an Ford Eco-
Sport Car bearing Registration No.TN-10-AT-3903. As the car tyre got
punctured, they parked the car opposite Pavender Polytechnic at
Manivizhunthan on the road's earthen shoulder and got an Auto Driver
namely Mr.Manivannan to help them by changing the spare wheel. The
Auto Driver had parked his Autorickshaw in front of the car. Both the car
and the Autorickshaw were parked with indicators and parking lights
turned on. Warning Triangle was also properly used. All the traffic rules
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
and regulations were followed.
4.2. At that time, an Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-37-
AT-6220, driven in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly hit against the
deceased - Jayaraman, Auto Driver - Manivannan and deceased
Jayaraman's friend - Anandakumar and also hit against the right side of the
Car and the Autorickshaw. In the accident, deceased - Jayaraman sustained
grievous injuries and passed away on the way to the hospital, the Auto
Driver passed away on the spot and the said Jayaraman's friend -
Anandakumar sustained grievous injuries.
4.3. At the time of accident, the deceased - Jayaraman was 39 years
old, engaged in the business of purchasing cotton fabrics and processing &
reselling them, under the name of M/s.Vijayalakshmi Tex and thereby
earned Rs.1,50,000/- per month.
4.4. First respondent is the owner of the said offending Eicher Lorry
and the second respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle. According to
the petitioners, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Eicher Lorry and therefore, both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioners.
Accordingly, the petitioners filed the present Claim Petition seeking a
compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only).
FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:
5. The first respondent filed a counter statement contending that the
driver of the Eicher lorry bearing Registration No. TN-37-AT-6220 was
driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road,
strictly adhering to traffic rules. The said Car and Auto Rickshaw were
parked in the middle of the road without any warning signal, parking lights
or indicators. In an attempt to avert the accident, the driver of the Eicher
Lorry applied sudden brakes, however, despite his best efforts, the accident
occurred solely due to the carelessness and negligence of the deceased -
Jayaraman and the deceased Auto Driver - Manivannan. They had
contributed to the occurrence of the accident and therefore, are guilty of
contributory negligence. The first respondent's Lorry was duly insured
with the second respondent and the insurance policy was in force on the
date of the accident. The driver of the lorry possessed a valid and effective
driving license at the relevant point of time. Hence, the second respondent
is liable to indemnify the first respondent, if any liability is fastened. The
first respondent further contended that the owners and insurers of the car
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
and the auto are necessary parties to the proceedings and that the Original
Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On the above grounds,
the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.
SECOND RESPONDENT’S CASE:
6. The second respondent filed a counter statement contending that
the deceased - Jayaraman had no knowledge of the traffic rules relating to
parking of vehicles on the road and there is no warning signal or indication
placed near the car at the spot of occurrence. There was no fault on the part
of the driver of the first respondent’s vehicle and that the deceased -
Jayaraman himself was a tort-feasor. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled
to any compensation. Compensation claimed under various heads are
excessive and exorbitant. On the above grounds, the second respondent
prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.
TRIBUNAL
7. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, the first petitioner -
Vijayalakshmi who is the wife of the deceased - Jayaraman was examined
as P.W.1 and one Anandakumar, an eyewitness / injured in the accident
was examined as P.W.2. and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.25 were marked. On the side
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document
was marked. A copy of Aadhaar Card of P.W.2 was marked as Ex-X.1.
8. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and the documentary
evidence available on record, observed that the place of occurrence is a
four-way National Highway Road. Even while assuming that the car was
parked in the middle of the road, the Eicher Lorry had sufficient space and
carriageway to pass through the place of accident without any difficulty.
Admittedly, the accident occurred at about 2.30 p.m., in the day light, and
therefore, even in the absence of any warning signal, the driver of the first
respondent’s vehicle could have clearly noticed the parked vehicles from a
considerable distance. The Tribunal further observed that the deceased -
Jayaraman would not have parked the car in the middle of a National
Highway carrying heavy vehicular traffic. Accordingly, the Tribunal came
to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher lorry belonging to the first
respondent. Eicher lorry involved in the accident was duly insured with the
second respondent–Insurance Company at the material point of time.
Consequently, the Tribunal held that the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and awarded a sum
of Rs.1,45,85,570/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Five Lakhs Eighty-Five
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy only) as compensation to the
petitioners.
9. Challenging the Award, the second respondent / Insurance
Company has preferred C.M.A. No.1251 of 2022 and seeking
enhancement of the compensation, the petitioners have preferred C.M.A.
No.1370 of 2023.
ARGUMENTS:
10. Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant in C.M.A. No.1251 of 2022 and second respondent in
C.M.A. .No.1370 of 2023 would submit that the Tribunal did not properly
appreciate Ex-P.19 to Ex-P.25 which are Income Tax Returns of the
deceased - Jayaraman. He would invite attention of this Court to Ex-P.25,
the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 (Financial
Year 2015-2016) submitted on September 17, 2016, after the demise of the
deceased - Jayaraman, and submit that a bare perusal of Ex-P.25 along
with Ex-P.22 to Ex-P.24 would show that the deceased - Jayaraman's
income has been boosted in Ex-P.25 only for the purpose of getting higher
compensation in the Motor Accident Claim. The Tribunal erred in not
taking the said aspect into consideration. In sum and substance, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
Counsel would submit that the income stated in Ex-P.25 cannot be taken
into account. The Tribunal has taken Ex-P.19 and Ex-P.25 - Income Tax
Returns and averaged the income stated therein to conclude that the
deceased earned a sum of Rs.14,44,057/- per annum. The approach of the
Tribunal in assessing the deceased's income is not in consonance with law.
Further, the Tribunal did not deduct income tax prevailing at the relevant
assessment year. He further would submit that the deceased - Jayaraman
was a businessman. Hence, the Tribunal rightly did not apply any future
prospects. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal in C.M.A. No.1251 of 2022, dismiss C.M.A. No.1370 of 2023 and
set aside the Award.
11. In response to the above submission, Mr.C.Kulanthaivel,
learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in C.M.A. No.1370 of 2023
and Respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A. .No.1251 of 2022 would submit that the
Tribunal ought to have taken the income stated in Ex-P.25 - Income Tax
Return which is the last earned income of the deceased - Jayaraman. There
is no reason to reject Ex-P.25 which was filed through a qualified Auditor.
He further would submit that the Tribunal failed to add future prospects as
per the dictum laid down in the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
(2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, the deceased - Jayaraman passed away
leaving four persons behind him, as his dependents. The Tribunal ought to
have deducted 1/4 of his income as his personal living expenses instead of
1/3, as per Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121. Accordingly, he would pray to allow C.M.A. No.1370
of 2023, dismiss the C.M.A. .No.1251 of 2022, and thereby, enhance the
Award amount by modifying the Award dated September 1, 2021 passed in
M.C.O.P.No.1417 of 2016.
DISCUSSION:
12. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
13. The evidence of P.W.2, who is an injured witness in the accident,
coupled with Ex-P.1 - F.I.R. and Ex-P.3 - Final Report, is sufficient to
come to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash
and negligence of the driver of the first respondent's Eicher Lorry. The
Tribunal has rightly held so. Moreover, the learned Counsel appearing for
the insurance company submitted that challenge in these Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals is restricted to the quantum of compensation alone.
Since the insurance company accepted its liability to pay compensation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
there is no need for this Court to delve into aspect of negligence and
liability.
14. Coming to quantum of compensation, the contentions raised are
only with regard to computation of income, personal deduction and future
prospects. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are as
follows:
(i) Whether the Tribunal is right in computing annual income
by taking the average of the income stated in Ex-P.19 and
Ex-P.25, which are the Annual Income Tax Return
Acknowledgments for the Assessment Years 2013- 2014
(Financial Year 2012-2013) and 2016-2017 (Financial Year
2015-2016) respectively ?
(ii) Whether Ex-P.25 which is the Annual Income Tax Return
Acknowledgment for the Assessment Year 2016-2017
(Financial Year 2015-2016) submitted on September 17,
2016, that is to say after the demise of deceased -
Jayaraman, can be taken into account as such for
determining his income ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
(iii) Whether future prospects is to be added to the income of the
deceased - Jayaraman given that he is engaged in a
business ?
(iv) Whether the Tribunal is right in deducting 1/3 as personal
deduction ?
(v) Whether the Award passed by the Tribunal is to be
interferred with ?
Point Nos.(i) and (ii)
15. As regards the income of the deceased - Jayaraman, he was
running a textile business in the name and style of M/s.Vijayalakshmi Tex
as its Sole Proprietor. Ex-P.18 - Registration Certificate issued by the
Government of Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,
2006, would prove the same. He is an Income Tax Assessee and his
Permanent Account Number (PAN) Card is marked as Ex-P.15. Ex-P.15
shows that his date of birth is June 2, 1976, which means the deceased -
Jayaraman was aged 39 years at the time of accident. Further, the
petitioners filed Ex-P.19 to Ex-P.25 which are Income Tax Return
Acknowledgements for the Assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017.
What could be discerned from Ex-P.19 to Ex-P.25 is that deceased -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
Jayaraman had two sources of income. One is rental income from a house
property owned by him in Chennai and another is the aforementioned
business. It could be further discerned that the said house property was
purchased on housing loan and that the deceased - Jayaraman was paying
interest for the same.
16. The relevant details contained in Ex-P.19 to Ex-P.25 can be
summarised as tabulated hereunder:
Assessment Total Total Total Total Net Date of
year & Income Income Income 80-C, 80- Taxable Income filing of
relevant from from D and Income Tax Return
exhibit House Business other after
Property deductions deductions
2013-14
Exs-P.19 & 94,570 10,63,938 9,69,369 1,09,824 8,59,550 1,04,967 26.10.2013
2014-15
61,792 12,26,627 11,64,836 1,11,830 10,53,010 1,50,280 26.11.2014
Ex-P.24
2015-16
34,206 12,02,907 11,68,702 1,62,251 10,06,450 1,30,743 01.10.2015
Ex-P.23
2016-17
57,450 18,61,294 19,18,745 1,50,000 17,68,750 3,66,294 17.09.2016
Ex-P.25
Note: All the amounts are in Indian Rupees
17. The deceased - Jayaraman passed away on the date of accident
viz., February 27, 2016. From the above table, it could be discerned that
there is no net income from the house property as the income therefrom is
spent on the interest for the housing loan. Hence, it cannot be considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
as income for the purpose of computing compensation. In fact, the auditor
seems to have deducted the same from his income while paying income
tax in Ex-P.19 to Ex-P.25. Further it could be seen from the above table
that the deceased - Jayaraman's income revolved around 10 to 12 Lakhs
from the Assessment Years 2013 - 14 and 2015 - 16 but has seen a jump of
about 50% in Assessment Year 2016 - 2017. To be noted, Ex-P.25 is an
Acknowledgement for the Income Tax Return filed on September 17, 2016
after the demise of the deceased - Jayaraman. Under such circumstances,
the petitioners ought to have taken steps to explain the sudden increase in
the income of the deceased. But the petitioners have failed to do so. The
Auditor who filed Ex-P.25 was not examined to prove its veracity. No
supporting documents or evidence was let in on the side of the petitioners
to substantiate the sudden boost in income. There is not even a plea to that
effect. As stated supra, Ex-P.25 was filed after the demise of the deceased -
Jayaraman. Hence, on the face of it, the income from business as stated in
Ex-P.25 appears to have been boosted for the purpose of obtaining a higher
compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have taken into
account Ex-P.25 while computing compensation. On the other hand, the
Tribunal ought to have the total annual income in Ex-P.19 to Ex-P.24 and
averaged the same. In that manner, the average annual income of the
deceased - Jayaraman would be Rs.11,00,969/-. Point No.(i) and (ii) are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
answered accordingly in favour of the insurance company and against
the petitioners.
Point No.(iii)
18. As regards future prospects, the learned Counsel for the
insurance company would submit that business income is not certain.
Profit this year may very well be followed by loss the next year. Even
Pranay Sethi's Case mentions of only self - employed people and self -
employed people does not include business people. Accordingly, he would
contend that future prospects is not to be added to the income of the
deceased - Jayaraman as he was engaged in a business.
19. At this juncture, this Court finds it appropriate to extract the
relvant portion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in Pranay Sethi's
Case hereunder:
"59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or
on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the
established income should be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition
of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40
to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between
the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
necessary method of computation. The established
income means the income minus the tax component."
20. The contention of the learned Counsel deserves to be recorded
only to be rejected. This Court is unable to accept the contention that self-
employed does not include a person engaged in a business activity. While
its apparent, Cambridge Dictionary available online also defines self-
employed as not working for an employer but finding work for yourself or
having your own business. Hence, the petitioners are indeed entitled to
future prospects which the Tribunal has failed to award. Point No.(iii) is
answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the
insurance company.
Point No.(iv)
21. As regards personal deductions, the deceased - Jayaraman
passed away leaving behind his wife, two minor children (Now attained
major) and mother as his financial dependents. Hence, the Tribunal is not
justifiable in deducting 1/3rd of his income towards personal and living
expenses. Deduction of 1/4 would be appropriate as per Judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport
Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Relevant portion reads thus:
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
made towards personal and living expenses is
calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok
Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general practice is
to apply standardised deductions. Having considered
several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of
the view that where the deceased was married, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the
number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-
fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family
members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the
number of dependent family members exceeds six."
22. Point No.(iv) is answered accordingly in favour of the
petitioners and against the insurance company.
Point No.(v)
23. As stated supra under Point Nos.(i) and (ii), the annual income
of the deceased is to be taken at Rs.11,00,969/- and as stated under Point
No.(iii), future prospects is to be added. With 40% future prospects, the
annual income of the deceased would be Rs. 15,41,356/-. Further, the
deceased is an income tax assessee. He passed away on February 27, 2016.
The income tax slabs for the relevant assessment year 2015-2016
(financial year 2014-15) are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
Income slabs Income tax rates
Upto Rs.2,50,000 Nil
10% of the amount exceeding
Rs.2,50,000
Rs.2,50,000 to 5,00,000 less: tax credit - 10% of taxable
income upto a maximum of rs.
2000/-.
Rs.25,000 + 20% of the amount
Rs.5,00,000 to 10,00,000
exceeding Rs.5,00,000
Rs.1,25,000 + 30% of the amount
Rs.10,00,000 & above
exceeding Rs.10,00,000
24. As per the above slab rates, the income tax payable would be
Rs.2,87,406/-. With the addition of 3% Educational Central Excise and
Service Tax (Educational CESS), the deceased - Jayaraman would have to
totally pay Rs. 2,96,028/- as tax and the same is to be deducted from the
total annual income after future prospects. In that manner, the income of
the deceased will be Rs.12,45,328/-.
25. As held under Point No.(iv), 1/4 deduction is to be made. With
such deduction, the loss of annual income to the petitioners from the
deceased - Jayaraman would be Rs. 9,33,996/-.
26. As stated supra, the age of the deceased - Jayaraman at the time
of accident is 39 years. The appropriate multiplier is 15. With the
multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.1,40,09,940/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
27. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- as funeral
expenses which is not in tune with Pranay Sethi's Case. Rs.15,000/- is the
right amount. At the same time, the Tribunal failed to award compensation
under the conventional head of loss of estate which the petitioners are
entitled to as per Pranay Sethi's Case. This Court is inclined to award
Rs.15,000/- under the said head.
28. In other aspects and heads, this Court finds no reason to interfere
with the Award of the Tribunal. To the above extent, the Award of the
Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. Point No.(v) is answered
accordingly.
29. The modified compensation the petitioners are entitled to is as
tabulated hereunder:
Sl. Head Amount Rs.
No
1. Loss of income / dependency 1,40,09,940.00
2. Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Loss of consortium 1,60,000.00
[Parental consortium – Rs.40,000.00
Filial consortium – Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 2)
Spousal consortium – Rs.40,000.00]
4. Funeral expenses 15,000.00
Total Compensation 1,41,99,940.00
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
30. Therefore, the appellant in C.M.A.No.1251 of 2022 / Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount of
Rs.1,41,99,940.00 (Rupees One Crore Forty-One Lakhs Ninety-Nine
Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty only) along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit,
with proportionate costs incurred by the claimants before the Tribunal to
the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1417 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem, less the amount if any
already deposited, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this Judgment. The Award amount shall be apportioned
in a manner propotionate to the apportionment made by the Tribunal. The
compensation amount shall be disbursed to the petitioners. In all other
aspects, the Award of the Tribunal shall hold good.
CONCLUSION:
31. In the result,
(i) C.M.A.No.1251 of 2022 filed by the Insurance Company is
allowed in part as detailed above.
(ii) C.M.A. No.1370 of 2023 filed by the petitioners / claimants is
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
(iii) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs in both the CMAs'.
(iv) Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
[N.S.K., J.] [R.S.V., J.]
20 / 01 / 2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
TK/PAM
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Special District Court
Salem.
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
CMA NOS.1251 OF 2022 & 1370 OF 2023
TK/PAM
s Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes,
C.M.A. NOS.1251 OF 2022 AND 1370 OF 2023
021C.M.A. NOS.423 AND 828 OF 202C.M.A. NOS.1902 AND 2302
OF C.M.A. NOS.1251 OF 2022 AND 1370 OF 2 2019 AND 149 OF
20 / 01 / 2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:00 pm )
