CMA/1113/2023 of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs K.S.Mannammal on 9 September 2026

Common Judgment

(Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Mala J.)

The Insurance Company, has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2022 in MCOP.No.42/2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [I Additional District and Sessions Judge], Vellore.

The claimant filed Cross Objection No.69/2026, claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal with 18% interest per annum.

Since the Appeal and the Cross Objection arise out one and the same judgment and decree, the same are disposed of by this common judgment.

The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the Appeal.

The 1st respondent, the mother of the deceased Sabarinathan, filed the claim petition, stating that on 20.11.2013, when the deceased Sabarinathan was riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-23- S-8201, a Bolero Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CC-7614, belonging to the 2nd respondent, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the deceased’s two-wheeler from behind, causing grievous injuries on him, resulting in his death on the way to hospital. The 1st respondent claimed that her son was a contractual employee of Fleet Maritime Services International Limited, Bermuda and that as 1st

Commis Chef in the Kitchen Department, and that he was earning Rs.70,200/- per month. Since the 1st respondent lost he son in the accident, she filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.2 Crores as compensation.

The claim petition was contested by both the appellant and the 2nd respondent, who filed counter affidavits to the claim petition, denying the manner of the accident, negligence, liability and the quantum of compensation claimed.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as PW1 apart from examining 5 other witnesses as PWs.2 to 6 and marked 16 documents in support of her case. The appellant and the 2nd respondent examined three witnesses and marked 7 documents. Documents Exs.X1 to X4 were marked as Court documents.

The Claims Tribunal, on an assessment of the entire materials on record, found that the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero car resulted in the accident. The Tribunal found that there was a valid insurance policy in force at the time of the accident and therefore, the appellant was liable to pay compensation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per month on the basis of the documentary evidence, Ex.P14 and the evidence of PW1 and PW4. The Claims Tribunal, after following the settled legal principles, awarded a total compensation of Rs.31,06,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the findings of the Claims Tribunal, on the issue of negligence and quantum, the appellant has filed the above Appeal.

Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the 1st respondent has filed the Cross Objection seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/-, overlooking the Salary Certificate [Ex.P9]. The 1st respondent further contended that the Claims Tribunal also erred in deducting 50% of the salary of the deceased towards personal expenses. On the said grounds, the 1st respondent sought enhancement of compensation.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings of the Claims Tribunal on negligence was erroneous and against the materials placed on record. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was excessive and speculative and therefore, prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded enhanced compensation in the light of Ex.P9-Salary Certificate of the deceased and hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

We have heard the learned counsels on both sides and also perused the materials available on record before us.

Though the appellant questioned the negligence of its driver and also the involvement of its vehicle in the accident, the Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, particularly, the evidences of PW2, eyewitness-cum-the complainant of the FIR [Ex.P1], PW3-the eyewitness as also the wife of PW2, PW5, the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR and the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Reports of the deceased’s motorcycle as also the Bolero Car, found that the Bolero car was very much involved in the accident and that the negligence of its driver caused the accident. We find that the Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons and has also considered the documentary evidence in proper perspective for returning a finding of negligence against the Bolero cars’ driver. We are not inclined to interfere with the same, more so, when we find no perversity in such findings.

On the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the appellant seeks for reduction of compensation, whereas the 1st respondent seeks enhancement. Even though the 1st respondent / Cross Objector seeks enhancement on the ground that Ex.P9-Salary Certificate, was not considered and that the deduction towards personal expenses was on the higher side, we find that the Claims Tribunal did not accept the Salary Certificate [Ex.P9] because the Salary Certificate related to a period prior to the accident and moreover, the deceased’s contract of employment stood terminated on 31.08.2013, two months prior to the accident. However, the Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of Pws.1 and 4 and considering the educational qualification and employment status of the deceased, fixed the income at Rs.30,000/- per month. We find that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting Ex.P9-Salary Certificate, and therefore, the fixing of the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per month, is found to be fair and reasonable.

As far as the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, we find that the Tribunal was right in deducting half of the salary of the deceased since admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, has enunciated that in the case of a death of a bachelor, deduction towards personal expenses should be 50%. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the deduction of 50% of the salary of the deceased towards his own expenses. Even the amounts awarded towards conventional damages, are fair, reasonable and in conformity with the settled legal principles.

We therefore, find no merits in both the Appeal as well as the Cross Objection and hence, the same are dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Claims Tribunal dated 15.07.2022, made in MCOP.No.42/2014, is confirmed.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire Award amount has already been deposited.

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the 1st respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the Award amount, by filing appropriate application before the Claims Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closd. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 09-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To

1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vellore.

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

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 1113 of 2023 AND CMP NO. 10781 OF 2023, CROS.OBJ NO. 69 OF 2026 09-09-2026