CMA/2075/2023 of M. ROSELIN Vs N. SIVABAKKIAM on 22 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petition), Small Causes Court, Chennai, both the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company are before this Court. CMA.No.2075 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioners and CMA.No.2426 of 2023 has been filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

2. Since the appellants in both the Appeals are challenging the same Award, a common judgment is being passed in both the Appeals.

3. The facts giving rise to the above Appeals are briefly set out hereinbelow and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal.

4. The petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased, A.Xavier Stalin. It is their case that on 21.12.2011, the deceased was travelling in the bus belonging to the 1st respondent, bearing Registration No.KA-46- 9199, from Hosur to Chennai. When the bus was proceeding on Senthamangalam High Road, the driver of the bus, who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the rear side of a stationary lorry belonging to the 3rd respondent, which was parked on the left side of the road, bearing Registration No.KA-01-AE-9976. As a result of the collision, the deceased sustained multiple injuries. He was rushed to the Sriperambadur Government Hospital and thereafter transferred to the Government Hospital, Chennai, where he was declared dead. It is their case that the deceased was working as a Senior Manager – Process Excellence at Tenneco Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.1,23,986/-. Therefore, the petitioners filed the claim petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.2,45,00,000/-.

5. The 1st respondent is the owner of the bus and the 2nd respondent is its insurer. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the stationary lorry and the 4th respondent is its insurer. The 5th respondent is the father of the deceased, who was subsequently impleaded as a party in the claim petition.

6. The respondents 1, 3 and 5 were called absent and were set ex parte.

7. The 2nd respondent filed a counter, inter alia, denying the manner of the accident and stating that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and that the accident had occurred only on account of the negligent parking of the lorry without following the basic road rules. Therefore, the 2nd respondent contended that they were not liable to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the said contention, the 2nd respondent also questioned the age, employment, income, etc., of the deceased and the right of the petitioners to claim compensation.

8. The 4th respondent filed a counter, inter alia, contending that the lorry was parked at a place securely without causing any hindrance to the traffic and that it was the negligent driving of the bus driver which caused the accident. It was therefore contended that the 4th respondent was not liable to pay the compensation.

9. The following points for consideration were framed by the Tribunal:- “(1) Whether this accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Regn.No.KA-46-9199 and Negligently parked Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01-AE-9976?

(2) Who is liable to pay the compensation?

(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? and if so, what is the quantum?”

10. On the side of the petitioners, four witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Exs.P.1 to P.32 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked.

11. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, held that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent bus. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the 2nd respondent, being the insurer of the bus, was liable to compensate the petitioners.

12. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence with reference to the income, ultimately arrived at a compensation of Rs.1,02,11,000/-. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, have filed CMA.No.2075 of 2023, and the 2nd respondent, the insurer of the 1st respondent bus, has challenged the Award by filing CMA.No.2426 of 2023, contending that the entire liability has been fastened on the 1st respondent and also questioning the finding with reference to negligence.

13. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

14. The issues that arise for consideration before this Court are as follows:-

(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in arriving at a finding that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent bus and, therefore, the 2nd respondent, as the insurer, is liable to pay the compensation?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation? Point No.1

15. From the records, it is seen that Ex.P.1, FIR, was lodged by the 1st petitioner. The driver of the bus had not lodged any complaint.

16. Ex.P.1, FIR, Ex.P.3, Charge Sheet and Ex.P.4, Accident Register, would clearly establish that the death of the said A. Xavier Stalin had occurred on account of the road accident. To prove the manner of the accident, one Srinivasan, who was a co-passenger in the bus, was examined as P.W.4. His

evidence clearly establishes that the bus had hit the stationary lorry parked on the left side of the road. P.W.1 had also deposed that the driver of the bus alone was responsible for the accident.

17. Further, two other passengers who had sustained injuries in the same accident had filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.527 of 2012. The 2nd respondent had settled the claim before the Lok Adalat. Therefore, by the said act, the 2nd respondent had admitted that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident and that the 2nd respondent, as the insurer, was obliged to indemnify the petitioners. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is estopped from questioning their liability. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent bus has to necessarily be upheld. The first point for consideration is answered in favour of the petitioners. Point No.2

18. With reference to the quantum, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded is excessive. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal below had not taken into consideration the salary certificate of the deceased, marked as Ex.P.16, wherein the salary for the month of November 2011 was shown as Rs.1,02,801/-.

19. The Tribunal below had rejected the salary shown in Ex.P.16 on the ground that it included several allowances. The Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the salary includes allowances which the employee are entitled to receive every month.

20. The salary certificate would show that, month after month, the deceased, in addition to his basic salary, had also been receiving House Rent Allowance, Conveyance Allowance and Special Allowance, which formed part of his salary. Therefore, the salary of the deceased is fixed at Rs.1,02,801/-. To this, 25% has to be added towards future prospects, which works out to Rs.25,700/-. Therefore, the monthly income would be Rs.1,28,501/- and the annual income would be Rs.15,42,015/-. Income Tax Calculation:- Upto 2,50,000 No tax- -- Rs.2,50,001 to 5,00,000 10% Rs.25,000/- Rs.5,00,001 to 10,00,000 20% Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.10,00,001 to 15,42,015 30% Rs.1,62,604/- Total Tax Rs.2,87,604/-

21. Therefore, the annual income after deduction of Income Tax would be Rs.12,54,411/-. There are five dependents. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 4 MLJ (SC) 997, one-fourth of the annual income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, which amounts to Rs.3,13,603/-. Therefore, the contribution to the family would be Rs.9,40,808/- per annum.

22. Further, the deceased was aged 42 years at the time of his death and, therefore, as per the aforesaid judgment, the multiplier applicable is 14. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would work out to Rs.1,31,71,312/-.

23. Accordingly, the revised compensation would be as follows:- S.No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or enhanced or granted or reduced

1. Total loss of dependency Rs.99,80,824/- Rs. 1,31,71,312 /- Enhanced

2. Loss

of Consortium Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Confirmed

3. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000 /- Confirmed

4. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs. 15,000 /- Confirmed TOTAL Rs. 1,02,11,000/- Rs. 1,34,01,312/- Enhanced

The 2nd point for consideration is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner.

24. In fine, CMA.No. 2075 of 2023 is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal be and hereby is enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,34,01,312/- from

Rs.1,02,11,000/- together with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In all other respect the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount (Rs.1,34,01,312/-) to the credit of M.C.O.P.No. 4793 of 2012, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petition), Small Causes Court, Chennai, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. On such deposit being made, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the enhanced award amount now determined by this Court in the same ratio as apportioned by the Tribunal.

25. In view of the enhancement of compensation in CMA.No.2075 of 2023 filed by the petitioners, CMA.No.2428 of 2023 filed by the insurance company is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHR

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SHR To

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petition), Small Causes Court, Chennai,

2. 2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. CMA No. 2075 of 2023 AND CMA NO. 2428 OF 2023,CMP NO. 22792 OF 2023 22-09-2026