CMA/678/2023 of S.Jayalakshmi Vs K.Mahesh on 12 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.670 of 2019.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that on 27.06.2018, when the deceased Sriraman was driving his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 11 T 4530 at GST Road near Tambaram MEPZ Signal, from South to North direction, the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-22-

CX-5859 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came at a dangerous speed and hit the deceased behind his vehicle, due to which, the deceased died on the spot.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that thereafter, the dependants of the deceased/ appellants filed claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.1 Crore. After adjudication, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that 10% of the award amount has to be deducted towards non production of insurance policy of the deceased vehicle and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.25,25,850/- and directed that the appellants claimants are entitled to Rs.22,73,265/- rounded off to Rs.22,73,300/- [after deducting 10% of Rs.25,25,850/-] with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization excluding the period of default if any with proportionate costs and directed the second respondent to deposit the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants claimants have filed this appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that the appellant has filed this appeal questioning the deduction of 10% of the award amount for non production of insurance policy and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that inorder to prove the case, the first appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined one eye witness as P.W.2 and marked exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P.17. The Insurance Company did not examine any witness and marked one exhibit Ex.R1. The learned counsel further submitted that Ex.P.1 – copy of FIR reveals that FIR was registered against the driver of the vehicle insured with the second respondent and the negligence was also fixed on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the second respondent, however, the Tribunal deducted 10% of the award amount towards non production of insurance policy of the deceased vehicle, which is not sustainable one.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the accident is of the year 2018, and Ex.P.7 – copy of appointment order would clearly show that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.36,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.21,000/- which is very meagre and further submitted that the amount awarded under the other heads are also very very meagre and hence, the appellants are entitled for enhancement in compensation.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company fairly submitted that when negligence was fixed on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the second respondent, deducting 10% of the award amount towards non production of insurance policy of the deceased vehicle is not sustainable one. The learned counsel further submitted that though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.36,000/- per month, they did not examine his employer as witness, thereby, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.21,000/- and further submitted that the Tribunal after considering all the factual aspects, awarded the compensation which is just and reasonable.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants claimants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.

9. The accident and the manner in which the accident happened are not disputed. Admittedly, FIR was registered against the driver of the vehicle insured with the second respondent and negligence was also fixed on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the second respondent. Hence, deducting 10% of the award amount towards non production of insurance policy of the deceased vehicle, is not sustainable one. The appellants claimants are entitled for 100% compensation amount.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs.23,90,850/- for loss of future dependency, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.80,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to the first petitioner and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.25,25,850/- and directed that the appellants claimants are entitled to Rs.22,73,265/- rounded off to Rs.22,73,300/- [after deducting 10% of Rs.25,25,850/-] with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

11. Admittedly, the accident is of the year 2018 and the age of the deceased is 51 years at the time of death. Though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.36,000/- per month, they did not examine his employer as witness, thereby, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.21,000/-, which warrants no interference. The Tribunal has rightly awarded 15% of the monthly income for future prospects and adopted the correct multiplier 11, however, has erred in deducting the amount towards personal expenses. There are four dependants and hence the Tribunal ought to have deducted ¼ of the monthly income for personal expenses, however, has deducted ¾, which is not sustainable one. If ¼ of the monthly income is deducted for personal expenses, the amount awarded for loss of future dependency works out to Rs.23,95,800/- [Rs.21,000/- X 15% = Rs.3,150/-; Rs.21,000/- + Rs.3,150/- = Rs.24,150/-; Rs.24,150/- X 1/4 = Rs.6,037.5; Rs.24,150/- - Rs.6,037.5 = Rs.18,112.5 rounded off to Rs.18,150/-; Rs.18,150/- X 12 X 11 = Rs.23,95,800/-].

12. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of estate and for transportation charges and in the opinion of this Court some amount has to be awarded under the said heads. Hence, this Court awards a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. The amount awarded under the head loss of love and affection, in the opinion of this Court is meagre and this Court is inclined to enhance the amount awarded under the said head. Accordingly, the amount awarded for loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/- from Rs.80,000/-. The amount awarded under the head funeral expenses, in the opinion of this Court is just and reasonable and the same is confirmed. The amount awarded under the head loss of consortium to 1st petitioner, in the opinion of this Court is not necessary and the same is deleted.

13. Accordingly, the compensation amount is re-assessed as follows: S. No. Description Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount Awarded by this Court

1. Loss of future dependency Rs.23,90,850/- Rs.23,95,800/-

2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/-

3. Loss of consortium to 1st petitioner Rs. 40,000/- ---

4. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-

5. Transportation expenses --- Rs. 10,000/-

6. Loss of estate --- Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.25,25,850/- Rs.25,95,800/-

14. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.25,95,800/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

15. The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.670 of 2019, is modified to the above extent.

16. The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified/ enhanced award amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount if any, already deposited. On such deposit being made, the appellants 1 and 4/ claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, along with accrued interest and proportionate costs, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making proper and necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellants 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw their shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, along with accrued interest and proportionate costs, on making proper and necessary application before the Tribunal and on production of necessary proof with regard to their majority. If the appellants 2 and 3 are still minors, their shares shall be kept in an interest yielding fixed deposit with anyone of the Nationalized Bank, initially, for a period of three years to be renewed at periodic intervals until they attain majority and; the interest derived from out of the said share of the minors 2 and 3 shall be paid to the first claimant/ mother every quarter to be utilized for the welfare of the said minors.

17. The appellants/ claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay, if any, in filing/ representing the appeal. The appellants/ claimants are directed to pay the requisite Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai, shall disburse the compensation amount upon production of certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee by the appellants/ claimants.

18. The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. No costs. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

M.DHANDAPANI, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. pri CMA No. 678 of 2023 12-10-2026