CMA/672/2023 of SASHIKALA Vs MANDALAPU SAILEELA on 12 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants/ claimants challenging the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.171 of 2020 dated 01.11.2022 on the file of the learned Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that on 07.07.2016 at about 10.30 p.m. the deceased Narendra Srinivas along with some Doctors was travelling in the Car bearing Registration No.TS 06 ED 3618 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent on the Mysore to Bellary Road NH 150(A) near Thittikanive Rampura Village, Molakkalmore Taluk. At that time, the driver of the car who is also a Doctor, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the back side of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA 01 C 414 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent which was going in front of the car, due to which, the deceased died on the spot.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that thereafter, the dependants of the deceased Narendra Srinivas/ appellants/ claimants filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs.Ten Crores as compensation. After adjudication, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.36,55,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of dismissal for default, if any) with proportionate costs and directed the respondents 1 and 2 to jointly and severally deposit the compensation and dismissed the petition as against the respondents 3 and 4. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement in compensation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that in order to prove the case, the first appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26, however, the second respondent Insurance Company did not examine any witness and marked one exhibit Ex.R1.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was a budding general surgeon; he had completed his MBBS and was doing final year in general surgery postgraduate course MS (General Surgery) and was drawing a stipend of Rs.25,000/-. He was also earning a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month through his private practice and was selected for a job by Hillingdon Hospital Trust Uxbridge, Middlesex London, United Kingdom at Mount Vernon Hospital with an initial offer of 40000 pound sterling (equal to Rs.40,00,000/- per annum), with a possible rise in his salary after the induction period. However, the Tribunal without considering all these facts, fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- which is very very meagre. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded under the other heads also are meagre. Accordingly prayed for enhancement in compensation.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was a Doctor doing M.S.Final year as Post Graduate at J.S.S.Medical College, Mysore. Though the claimants claim that the deceased was offered job by Hillingdon Hospital Trust Uxbridge, Middlesex London, United Kingdom at Mount Vernon Hospital, the employer was not examined before the Tribunal, thereby, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal after considering all the factual aspects, awarded the compensation which is just and reasonable and hence, the impugned judgment warrants no interference.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

8. The accident and the manner in which the accident happened are not disputed. This appeal has been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation. Hence, there is no need for any discussion with regard to negligence aspect.

9. The tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs.35,70,000/- for loss of income, Rs.60,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.36,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

10. Admittedly, the accident is of the year 2016 and the deceased is a bachelor aged 28 years and he had completed his MBBS and was doing final year in general surgery postgraduate course MS (General Surgery) at the time of death. There is no dispute with regard to the educational qualification of the deceased. Though the claimants have marked Ex.P16 – copy of application –

London and Ex.P17 – approval letter inorder to prove that the deceased was offered job in United Kingdom at Mount Vernon Hospital, the employer was not examined and hence Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 are not admissible. However, the records reveal that apart from the stipend of Rs.25,000/- per month, he was also earning by private practice. Hence, this Court fix the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly awarded 40% of the monthly income for future prospects and has rightly deducted ½ of the monthly income for personal expenses and adopted the correct multiplier 17. Hence, the amount awarded for loss of income works out to Rs.71,40,000/- [Rs.50,000/- X 40% = Rs.20,000/-; Rs.50,000/- + Rs.20,000/- = Rs.70,000/-; Rs.70,000/- X 1/2 = Rs.35,000/-; Rs.70,000 /- - Rs.35,000/- = Rs.35,000/-; Rs.35,000/- X 12 X 17 = Rs.71,40,000/-].

11. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of estate and for transportation charges and in the opinion of this Court some amount has to be awarded under the said heads. Hence, this Court awards a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. The amount awarded under the head funeral expenses, in the opinion of this Court is on higher side and this Court is inclined to reduce the amount awarded under the said head. Accordingly, the amount awarded for funeral expenses is reduced to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.25,000/-. The amount awarded under the head loss of love and affection, in the opinion of this Court is meagre and this Court is inclined to enhance the amount awarded under the said head. Accordingly, the amount awarded for loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/- from Rs.60,000/-.

12. Accordingly, the compensation amount is re-assessed as follows: S.No. Description Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount Awarded by this Court

1. Loss of income Rs.35,70,000/- Rs.71,40,000/-

2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/-

3. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/-

4. Transportation expenses --- Rs. 10,000/-

Loss of estate --- Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.36,55,000/- Rs.73,00,000/-

13. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.73,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

14. The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.171 of 2020 dated 01.11.2022 on the file of the learned Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem, is modified to the above extent.

15. The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified/ enhanced award amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellants / claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, along with accrued interest and proportionate costs, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making proper and necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellants/ claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay, if any, in filing/ representing the appeal. The appellants/ claimants are directed to pay the requisite Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The learned Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem, shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee by the appellants/ claimants.

16. The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. No costs. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri To The Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem.

M.DHANDAPANI, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. pri CMA No. 672 of 2023 12-10-2026