CMA(MD)/1112/2024 of V.Maruthappan Vs Praveen Raj Sait on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The claimants in M.C.O.P. No.77 of 2022, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Madurai, have filed the present C.M.A.(MD).No.1112 of 2024 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by its award dated 01.04.2024.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. According to the claimants, on 20.03.2021, at about 4.40 p.m., the deceased was riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-66-BZ-3434 along the Madurai–Trichy Four-Lane Road. When he attempted to cross the road, a Mahindra car bearing Registration No. TN-22-DF-3225, insured with the respondent Insurance Company, allegedly came in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against him. As a result of the impact, the rider sustained fatal injuries and died.

2.2. The dependants of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest.

2.3. The respondent Insurance Company filed a counter statement disputing the manner of the accident and contending that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, who allegedly attempted to cross the road without taking proper care. The Insurance Company therefore disputed its liability to pay compensation.

2.4. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.W.1 and marked the relevant documentary evidence.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon considering the materials on record, including the First Information Report and the final report filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, and in the absence of contra evidence sufficient to displace the claimants’ case, the Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle. It awarded compensation of Rs.12,01,299/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Sl.No. Heads Amounts in Rs.

Loss of Income 10,06,299/-

Consortium 1,60,000/-

Transportation Expenses 5,000/-

Funeral Expenses 15,000/-

Loss of Estate 15,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.12,01,299/-

3.2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the deceased was engaged in agricultural work and earned more than the monthly income taken by the Tribunal. It was further contended that the Tribunal determined the deceased’s age as 61 years based on the post-mortem certificate and applied the corresponding multiplier without adding future prospects. The learned counsel also submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads was inadequate, particularly because the Tribunal had not granted appropriate compensation to all the claimants under the relevant heads. Hence, enhancement was sought.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company:

5.1. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company opposed the appeal and submitted that the Tribunal had correctly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and determined his age as 61

years based on the post-mortem certificate. It was contended that no contra evidence had been produced to establish a different age or a higher income. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal had already awarded Rs.40,000/- under the relevant conventional head and that no further amount was payable to the other dependants. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal was sought.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. Point for determination Whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal?

8. Discussion and findings of this Court

8.1. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

8.2. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- by taking into consideration the nature of his occupation and the evidence available on record. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision reported in 2019 (1) TN MAC 54, which, according to the submission, considered the applicable cost inflation index while determining income. In the absence of sufficient material warranting a different assessment,

this Court finds no ground to interfere with the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal.

8.3. As regards the age of the deceased, the Tribunal relied upon the age recorded in the post-mortem certificate and determined his age as 61 years. In the absence of reliable contra evidence establishing a different age, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with that finding. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 7 and did not add future prospects. Having regard to the age adopted by the Tribunal and the materials available, no interference is warranted with the calculation of loss of dependency on the grounds raised in this appeal.

8.4. However, insofar as compensation under the head of loss of consortium and love and affection are not correctly awarded. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pranaysethi is reported 2017 16 SCC 680, each claimant is entitled to receive Rs.40,000/- under the head of love and affection apart from the spouse’s entitlement to receive the loss of consortium. Accordingly, the first claimant is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and remaining claimants are entitled to Rs,40,000/- each under the head of love and affection.

8.5. It is seen from the records that the deceased sustained injuries on 20.03.2021 and was admitted to Meenakshi Hospital, Madurai, where she underwent treatment upto 01.04.2021. Thereafter she admitted in Madurai Government Hospital and despite the best possible treatment, she succumbed to

her injuries on 04.04.2021. The medical expenses incurred amounted to Rs.5,78,360/-, for which the original medical bills were produced and marked as Ex.P7. This Court has perused the evidence of P.W.1, and nothing has been elicited to cast doubt on the genuineness of the said medical bills.

8.6. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to received the enhanced compensation as stated below:- Sl. No Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Re-quantified amount by this Court (Rs.) Status

Loss of Income 10,06,299/- 10,06,299/- Confirmed

Loss of spouse and filial consortium 1,60,000/- 1,60,000/- Enhanced

Transportation Expenses 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed

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

Medical Expenditure ----- 5,78,360/- Awarded Total Compensation Awarded Rs.12,01,299/- Rs.17,79,659/- Enhanced

9. Result

9.1. In the result, the C.M.A.(MD).No.1112 of 2024 is partly allowed.

9.2. The award dated 01.04.2024 in M.C.O.P.No.77 of 2022 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Madurai is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.12,01,299/- to Rs.17,79,659/-, representing an enhancement of Rs.6,98,360/-.

9.3. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.17,79,659/-, together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until deposit, after giving credit to any amount already deposited, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

9.4. Upon such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective apportionment as fixed by the Tribunal. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No aas To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The Special District Court, Madurai.

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. aas CMA(MD) No. 1112 of 2024 and CMP(MD) No. 11686 of 2024 02-11-2026