CMA/1213/2023 of P.KALIAPPAN Vs A.MOHAMMED IRFAN on 28 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The petitioners have filed this civil miscellaneous appeal seeking enhancement of the award passed in MCOP.No.7133 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai. The short facts are as follows. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal.

2. The petitioners filed the above claim petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- for the death of their son in a road accident. It is their case that on 19.04.2016 at about 14.00 hrs., while the deceased K.Ponmudiselvam was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 22 CR 9393 from north to south i.e., from Ennore to his house, a lorry bearing registration No. TN 28 AB 7255 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, driven in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries.

3. The petitioners submit that the deceased was employed as an Assistant Engineer in TNEB, Ennore, earning a monthly income of Rs.60,000/-. They would submit that the accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent

CMA No. 1213 of 2023

driving of the 1st respondent driver and that the petitioners are entitled to compensation.

4. The 1st respondent owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent / insurance company filed a counter affidavit denying the nature of the accident, age, income and relationship of the petitioners to the deceased. They would submit that the deceased had also contributed for the accident. Therefore, there must be an apportionment of the award.

5. The Tribunal below on analysing the evidence on record held that the accident had occurred only on account of the negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent lorry. The Tribunal relying upon Ex.P.13, fixed a monthly income of Rs.41,035/-. However, it has not taken into consideration the revised pay scale as it had not yet come into existence. The Tribunal ultimately arrived at a compensation of Rs.54,74,128/-. Challenging the said award, the petitioners are before this Court.

6. The petitioners have challenged the said award only on the ground that in Ex.P.13, revised pay scale had already been quantified and that it was to come into effect with effect from 01.12.2015.

CMA No. 1213 of 2023

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (3) CTC 883 – Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration the revision of salary by the Sixth Pay Commission which come into effect on 01.01.2006, stating that benefits were made to operate retrospectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had accepted the revision of salary and accordingly enhanced the compensation. In that case, the accident had taken place on 05.10.2007.

8. Per contra, Mr. J.Michael Visuvasam, appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent / insurance company would submit that as per the TANGEDCO Revised Pay (Officers) Regulations, 2015, the revision of wages was deemed to have come into force with effect from 01.12.2015 with notional fixation and monetary benefits with effect from 01.10.2017. He would submit that a similar issue had been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another – 2009 (6) SCC 121, wherein similar argument was put across and the same was shot down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by stating that the revision of pay scale is subsequent to the death.

9. He would further submit that in the case of Rajesh and others supra there has been no authoritative pronouncement and the learned Judges have

CMA No. 1213 of 2023

simply adopted the revised pay. However, in the later judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyno M.Aykara and others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., - SLP(C). No.15192 of 2020, the learned Judges had directed the matter to be considered by a Three Judges Bench. Therefore, the same has to be confirmed.

10. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.

11. The only issue that is now placed for consideration is whether the revision of wages as set out in the TANGEDCO Rules in which monetary benefits were come into effect on 01.10.2017 can be extended to the deceased in the instant case. The accident had taken place on 19.04.2016 and the regulations have come into effect nearly a year, thereafter. The learned counsel for the appellant’s contention that since the pay has already been revised and the same should be given effect to cannot be countenanced in the light of the following discussion in the case of Sarala Verma: “24. The assumption of the appellants that the actual future pay revisions should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the income is not sound. As against the contention of the appellants that if the deceased had been alive, he would have earned the benefit of revised pay scales, it is equally possible that if he had not died in the accident, he might have died on account of ill health or other

CMA No. 1213 of 2023

accident, or lost the employment or met some other calamity or disadvantage. The imponderables in life are too many. Another significant aspect is the non-existence of such evidence at the time of accident. In this case, the accident and death occurred in the year 1988. The award was made by the Tribunal in the year 1993. The High Court decided the appeal in 2007. The pendency of the claim proceedings and appeal for nearly two decades is a fortuitous circumstance and that will not entitle the appellants to rely upon the two pay revisions which took place in the course of the said two decades. If the claim petition filed in 1988 had been disposed of in the year 1988-89 itself and if the appeal had been decided by the High Court in the year 1989-90, then obviously the compensation would have been decided only with reference to the scale of pay applicable at the time of death and not with reference to any future revision in pay scales. If the contention urged by the claimants is accepted, it would lead to the following situation: The claimants only could rely upon the pay scales in force at the time of the accident, if they are prompt in conducting the case. But if they delay the proceedings, they can rely upon the revised higher pay scales that may come into effect during such pendency. Surely, promptness cannot be punished in this manner. We therefore reject the contention that the revisions in pay scale subsequent to the death and before the

CMA No. 1213 of 2023

final hearing should be taken note of for the purpose of determining the income for calculating the compensation.

12. Though another Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the revision, however, the said order in Rajesh and others, cannot be taken as an authoritative pronouncement as no reasons have been given justifying the adoption of the revised pay scale. On the contrary, the Bench had stated that it is following Sarala Verma’s case, which by reason of the order extracted supra appears to be incorrect.

13. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed in OP.No.7133 of 2016 by the MACT (II Court of Small Causes) Chennai. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAN

CMA No. 1213 of 2023

To MACT (II Court of Small Causes) Chennai.

CMA No. 1213 of 2023

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. KAN CMA No. 1213 of 2023 28-09-2026