CMA/316/2024 of Revathi Vs Jayaprakash on 21 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1322/2021 on the file of Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem, are the appellants herein seeking enhancement of the compensation granted in the award dated 18.08.2023.

2. The claimants are the wife, minor children and parents of one Bhoopathi, who died in a road accident on 27.08.2021. It is the case of the claimants that at about 1.00p.m., when the deceased Bhoopathi was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN19-B-4134 on Mullukurichi - Nariyangadu Road and when he neared Ponnukuthamman Temple, a car

CMA No. 316 of 2024

bearing registration No.TN70-R-7777 which came in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the two wheeler of the deceased Bhoopathy. As a result of this collision, the said Bhoopathi sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Initially he was admitted in Primary Health Centre at Mullukurichi and later was shifted to Neuro Foundation Hospital, Salem, and thereafter, to General Hospital, Salem. Ultimately, he succumbed to his injuries on 30.08.2021.

3. The victim of the accident was aged about 35 years and he is an agriculturist. The claimants would also state that at the time of accident, he was working in private company and was earning not less than Rs.30,000/- per month. They had therefore claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicles, who are the respondents herein.

4. The first respondent though served remained exparte. It was the second respondent - Insurance Company of the offending vehicle who had contested the case. In its counter, the second respondent had taken a defence that the offending car did not possess a valid insurance and the driver who was on the wheels at the time of accident did not possess a valid driving licence. They had also taken a defence that the deceased Bhoopathy was not wearing a helmet at the time of accident and he was on cellphone while driving. Therefore, on account of his careless driving, the deceased had hit the front portion of the car

CMA No. 316 of 2024

and invited the accident. They also contend that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. They would also plead that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the insurer of the two wheeler, and sought for dismissal of the claim petition with costs.

5. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant namely the wife of the deceased Bhoopathy examined herself as P.W.1, and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. One Mohan, the Special Sub Inspector of Police was examined as R.W.1 and Ext.X1 was marked through him.

6. The Tribunal below on assessing the evidence on record held that the car driver was negligent and he was solely responsible for the accident and fixed the liability on the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal relied on Ex.P9, pay slip of the deceased for the month of March, 2021; and Ex.P10, bank statement of the deceased, to determine his income. However, the Tribunal disbelieved these documents to prove the income of the deceased, and thereby fixed a notional income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Since the victim was 35 years at the relevant time, the Tribunal applied 16 as multiplier and arrived at the net value of dependency at Rs.14,40,000/-. After adding other conventional heads of compensation, the Tribunal arrived at a total compensation of Rs.17,95,000/- and awarded the compensation with interest at 7.5% and directed that the

CMA No. 316 of 2024

respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of award, the claimants are before this Court.

8. Mr.R.Nalliyappan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants would submit that despite producing Ext.P9, salary certificate and Ext.P10, bank statement of the deceased, which clearly showed that the deceased was receiving a net salary of Rs.28,166/- per month, the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month. That apart, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. He would also submit that Ext.P8, Medical Bills for a sum of Rs.2,18,021/- was produced before the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,90,000/- under the head of medical expenses, without assigning any reason for not awarding the entire bill amount. Therefore, he sought to have the award amount be enhanced.

9. Ms.C.Harini, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company / 2nd respondent would submit that Ex.P10 bank statement that has been produced, was only for a period of two months and Ex.P9, is the pay slip of the deceased for the month of March 2021. She would submit that the amounts given in

CMA No. 316 of 2024

Ex.P9 and Ex.P10, do not tally. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in adopting the notional income as Rs.10,000/- per month.

10. We have heard the counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed before us.

11. It is no doubt true that the amounts shown in Ext.P9 and the entries in Ext.P10 appears to have certain discrepancies. However, the fact remains that the deceased Bhoopalan was employed at PC Knitfabs. Ex.P9, salary slip would show his nett salary was Rs.28,166/- Therefore, the Tribunal fixing the monthly income including 40% future prospects at Rs.10,000/-, is without any basis. Therefore, the notional income is enhanced to a sum of Rs.15,000/- and by adding 40% towards future prospects and by applying 16 as multiplier, and after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the victim, the loss of income is arrived at Rs. 30,24,000/- [Rs.21,000/- x 12 x 16 = 40,32,000 (-) 1/4th (Rs.10,08,000/-)]. The claimants 2 to 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of love and affection, and accordingly, under this head, the amount is enhanced to Rs.1,76,000/-. Under the head of loss of consortium to the first claimant, the amount is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.44,000/-. Since the Tribunal has not given any reason for restricting the medical expenses to Rs.1,90,000/-, when bills to the tune of Rs.2,18,021/- has been produced by the claimants, this Court deems it appropriate to award the actual sum of

CMA No. 316 of 2024

Rs.2,18,021/- towards medical expenses and accordingly the same is awarded on this head. The Tribunal has failed to award compensation on the head of loss of estate, and this Court grants Rs.16,500/- on this head. With regard to funeral expenses is concerned, the amount awarded by Tribunal is reduced to Rs.16,500/-. Therefore, the revised compensation amount now awarded by this Court under various heads, are tabulated below : Sl. No. Heads Amount Awarded

by Tribunal (Rs.) Amount Awarded by this Court (Rs.)

1. Loss of Income 14,40,000.00 30,24,000.00

2. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000.00 1,76,000.00

3. Loss of consortium 40,000.00 44,000.00

4. Medical expenses 1,90,000.00 2,18,021.00

5. Funeral expenses 25,000.00 16,500.00

6. Loss of estate - 16,500.00 Total Compensation 17,95,000.00 34,95,021.00 Rounded off to Rs.34,95,020.00 According, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.17,95,000/- to Rs.34,95,020/-

12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the revised award amount of Rs.34,95,020/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Ninty Five Thousand and Twenty only) as compensation to the credit of MCOP.No.1322/2021 on the

CMA No. 316 of 2024

file of Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal at Salem, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants/appellants are permitted to withdraw the same in the manner as apportioned by the Tribunal, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. The share of the minor claimants shall be invested in a Nationalised Bank in a fixed deposit scheme until they attain majority and the first claimant/first appellant, the mother of the minors is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon once in three months for the maintenance and welfare of the minor claimants. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the court fee for the enhanced award amount, failing which they are not entitled to receive the award amount. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS

CMA No. 316 of 2024

To:

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge) Salem.

2. The Section Officer VR Section High Court, Madras.

CMA No. 316 of 2024

P.T.ASHA J. AND E.MANOHARAN J. DS CMA No. 316 of 2024 21-09-2026