CMA(MD)/1040/2023 of THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs E.SARANYA on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The second respondent in M.C.O.P. No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam, has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, challenging the award dated 15.09.2022 passed in the said claim petition.

2. Facts of the case: The claimants in M.C.O.P. No.4 of 2018 are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased Easwaran. According to the claimants, on 29.09.2017 at about 11.45 p.m., the deceased was walking from east to west near Kombai Bus Stand. At that time, the offending two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-20-9217, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, was ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same.

2.2. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

2.3. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim petition by denying the manner of the accident and the negligence attributed to the rider of the two-wheeler. The quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed.

2.4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P24 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the evidence of the independent eyewitness and Ex.P1-FIR, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the two-wheeler and consequently fastened the liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.29,20,800/- on the following heads with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition: Sl.No. Heads Amount in Rs.

Loss of Dependency 26,20,800/-

Loss of Love and affection 1,00,000/-

Loss of Consortium 1,60,000/-

Loss of Estate 15,000/-

Transport Charges 10,000/-

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Total 29,20,800/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company disputed both the finding on negligence and the quantum of compensation. It was contended that the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- without sufficient documentary evidence. It was further contended that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- under the heads of loss of consortium and love and affection, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi. The learned counsel therefore sought reduction of the compensation.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal had rightly appreciated the evidence of P.W.2, an independent eyewitness, who had clearly spoken about the manner of the accident and the rash and negligent

riding of the two-wheeler. It was contended that there was no contra evidence adduced by the Insurance Company to discredit the said evidence. Therefore, the finding on negligence does not warrant interference.

5.2. With regard to the quantum, the learned counsel submitted that the deceased was aged about 31 years and was working as a tractor driver. In the absence of documentary evidence regarding his income, the Tribunal had reasonably fixed his monthly income at Rs.13,000/-. It was further contended that, considering that the deceased left behind a young widow and minor children, the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs.2,60,000/- towards consortium and love and affection.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the entire records.

7. The first question for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the negligence upon the rider of the two-wheeler?

7.1. The next question is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires modification?

8. Discussion on the negligence:

8.1. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report registered against the rider of the offending two-wheeler. More importantly, P.W.2, an independent eyewitness, has clearly deposed regarding the manner of the accident. He has specifically stated that the rider of the two-wheeler rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, who was walking on the road.

8.2. The evidence of P.W.2 has not been effectively challenged in cross-examination. No contra eyewitness was examined on the side of the Insurance Company to establish that the accident occurred due to any negligence on the part of the deceased.

8.3. The evidence of P.W.2, when considered along with Ex.P1-FIR and the other materials available on record, establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending two-wheeler.

8.4. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the rider of the two-wheeler was responsible for the accident. The said finding is accordingly confirmed.

9. Discussion on quantum:

9.1. The deceased was aged about 31 years and was stated to be working as a tractor driver. No documentary evidence has been produced to establish his exact monthly income. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.13,000/-.

9.2. It is well settled that, in the absence of satisfactory documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the Court is required to make a reasonable assessment on the basis of the nature of avocation, age, period of accident and the surrounding circumstances. Some degree of guesswork is inevitable in such cases. The Tribunal, having regard to the avocation of the deceased as a tractor driver and the other circumstances, has fixed the monthly income at Rs.13,000/-. This Court

finds the said assessment to be reasonable and does not find any ground to interfere with the same. The next issue relates to the sum of Rs.2,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of loss of consortium and love and affection.

9.3. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased had left behind a young widow and minor children and, therefore, the Tribunal had adopted a higher amount having regard to the circumstances of the family. However, the compensation under the conventional heads has to be determined in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9.4. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court standardised the amount payable under the conventional heads, including loss of consortium. The subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have also recognised consortium as an entitlement of the spouse and, in appropriate cases, parental consortium for children.

9.5. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, the first claimant, being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The respondent No.2 and 3 are the claimants, being the children of the deceased, are entitled to loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each, and respondent No.4 is the claimant, being the mother of the deceased is entitled to parental consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- totalling Rs.1,20,000/-.

9.6. Thus, the total amount under these heads is Rs.1,60,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,60,000/- under the said heads. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has to

be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Except for the aforesaid modification, the remaining heads of compensation awarded by the Tribunal do not call for interference. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.29,20,800/- is reduced by Rs.1,00,000/- and is hereby modified to Rs.28,20,800/-. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, as awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is re-determined as follows:- Sl. No Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Re-quantified amount by this Court Status

Loss of Dependency 26,20,800/- 26,20,800/- Confirmed

Loss of Love and affection for children of the deceased/mother of the deceased 1,00,000/- 1,20,000/- Enhanced

Loss

of consortium/wife 1,60,000/- 40,000/- Reduced

Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed

Transport charges 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed Total 29,20,800/- 28,20,800/- Reduced

11. Result

11.1. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.

11.2. The finding of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam with regard to negligence is hereby confirmed. The compensation of Rs.29,20,800/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2018 is reduced to Rs.28,20,800/-.

11.3. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount of Rs.28,20,800/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, after giving credit to the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

11.4. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares in accordance with the apportionment already made by the Tribunal.

11.5. If the Insurance Company has deposited any amount in excess of the modified award amount, it is at liberty to withdraw the excess amount in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, is closed. 02.11.2026 NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No sbn

To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J., sbn Pre-delivery Judgment made in C.M.A.(MD).No.1040 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD).No.14165 of 2023 02.11.2026