CMA/817/2023 of ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs AMSAVENI on 12 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) Assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Dharmapuri in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2015, the appellant-insurance company has filed the present appeal.

2. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants are the wife, son and parents of the deceased Krishnan. On 31.01.2013, the deceased proceeded in the two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN-30-M-6985 from Omalur to Mecheri after completion of his duty and at about 09.25 p.m., when he went near Kammandapatti diversion road, the 1st respondent’s bus bearing Regn.No.TN-30-AC-1200 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, thereby, he did on the spot. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Krishnan.

3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined 3 witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked 14 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the side of the respondents, they have examined 2 witnesses viz., R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked 2 documents viz., Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. After adjudication, the Tribunal had partly allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.26,62,000/- as compensation under various heads. Challenging the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would submit that the Tribunal erred in holding the appellant liable to pay compensation and failed to exonerate them from negligence. She would further submit that the Tribunal has not considered the documents viz., Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2, which clearly reveals that the police case against the driver of the appellant bus was closed as ‘mistake of fact’. Further, she would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the same is not on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017

(16) Supreme Court Cases 680 as 50% of income was added towards future prospects instead of 40%. On the said grounds, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, she prays for allowing the appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after carefully considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had fastened the entire liability on the appellant- Insurance Company, which does not require any interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissing the appeal.

6. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. The happening of the accident and the travelling of the deceased in his vehicle and the death of the deceased is not in dispute. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. The main grievance of the appellant is regarding fastening of entire liability on the appellant. To establish negligence, the claimants examined P.W.2, who is an eye-witness, and he categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased, thereby the accident had happened. In order to disprove the same, the appellant had not examined any independent eye-witness, except examining the driver of the bus as R.W.1, and his evidence cannot be taken into consideration, since he is an interested witness. Therefore, the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion that the accident had happened only due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus and thereby, fixed the entire liability on the appellant, which cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and the same is confirmed.

8. Now, coming to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the applicable percentage of future prospects to be added is 40%, however the Tribunal has erroneously added 50% of income towards future prospects. This Court is of the view that on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% of income towards future prospects, as the deceased was not a permanent employee, and thereby, this Court fixes 40% of income towards future prospects. Hence, by accepting the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.12,000/- and adding future prospects at 40%, as has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 680, the total income per month is quantified at Rs.16,800/-. Deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.12,600/- per month and the deceased being aged about 34 years, as evidenced from the records, adopting the multiplier of 16 as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.12,600/- * 12 * 16 = Rs.24,19,200/-, which is worked out as follows :- Loss of Income Amount in Rs. Notional income (Per month) 12,000 Add: Future Prospects (Rs.12,000/- x 40%) (Per month) 4,800 16,800 Less: Personal expenses (1/4th) (Rs.16,800/- x 1/4th) (Per month) 4,200 12,600 Notional income (per annum) (Rs.12,600/- x 12) 1,15,200 Multiplier

Total 24,19,200

9. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. This Court finds that the compensation awarded under the said heads are just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of love and affection to the respondents 2 to 4. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3) is awarded towards loss of love and affection.

10. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under :- S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (Amount in Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Amount in Rs.)

Compensation for pecuniary loss 25,92,000/- 24,19,200/- (reduced)

Loss of consortium 40,000/- 40,000/-

Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/-

Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-

Loss of love and affection - 1,20,000/- Total 26,62,000/- 26,09,200/-

11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified, reducing the compensation amount from Rs.26,62,000/- to Rs.26,09,200/-. The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the modified compensation amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2015 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The above modified compensation amount shall be apportioned among the respondents 1 to 4/claimants as per the apportionment of the Tribunal. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective share of the respondents 1, 3 and 4/claimants 1, 3 and 4 directly to their bank accounts, through RTGS within a period of two

(2) weeks thereafter. Further, the Tribunal is also directed to deposit the share of the 2nd respondent/2nd claimant in an interest yielding fixed deposit with any one of the Nationalised Banks, initially for a period of one year to be renewed at periodic intervals until he attains majority and interest derived from out of the said deposit shall be paid to the 1st respondent, who is the mother of the 2nd respondent, every quarter, to be utilised for the welfare of the said minor claimant. After attaining majority, it is open to the 2nd respondent/2nd claimant to file necessary application to establish his majority, at which point of time, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the amount in the fixed deposit directly to the bank account of the 2nd respondent/2nd claimant through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Dharmapuri.

M.DHANDAPANI J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. sp C.M.A.No.817 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.7564 of 2023 12-10-2026