CMA(MD)/350/2015 of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs SIRAJINISHA on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pattukkottai, has filed this appeal challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 2010 dated 27.02.2014.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. On 05.12.2009 at about 3.45 p.m., the deceased Basheer Ahamed was riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-07-X-4009 on the Thambikottai– Vadakadu ECR Road. At that time, the offending vehicle, namely, the Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN-50-D-0900, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same.

2.2. The dependents of the deceased filed M.C.O.P. No.180 of 2010 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the manner of the accident, negligence, income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants.

2.3. In order to establish their case, on the side of the claimants P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, fixed negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.14,70,000/- as compensation, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition, under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount in Rs

Loss of Income 12,60,000/-

Loss of consortium 1,00,000/-

Loss of Love and affection (20000 X 3) 60,000/-

Filial Consortium 20,000/-

Funeral Expenses 25,000/-

Transportation 5,000/- Total 14,70,000/-

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 submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. It was contended that there was no sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased was employed as a driver in Kuwait or that he was earning the income fixed by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- without proper evidence and had consequently arrived at an excessive compensation.

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

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal had properly appreciated the evidence and had reasonably fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. It was pointed out that Ex.P11, the Kuwait driving licence, and the passport endorsement established that the deceased had travelled to Kuwait on an employment visa. The learned counsel therefore sought confirmation of the award, particularly considering the number of dependants, including three female children.

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

7. The following point arises for consideration:

7.1. Whether the compensation of Rs.14,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and calls for interference?

8. Discussion on Quantum of Compensation:

8.1. It is true that no specific documentary evidence such as an employment certificate or salary certificate was produced to establish the exact income earned by the deceased while working in Kuwait. However, the circumstances regarding his employment have been established through the evidence on record.

8.2. Ex.P11 is the Kuwait driving licence issued in the name of the deceased. The passport also contains an endorsement indicating that the deceased had traveled to Kuwait on an employment visa. P.W.1 has also deposed that the deceased was working as a driver in a foreign country. Thus, the evidence establishes that the deceased had the qualification and opportunity to work as a driver in Kuwait.

8.3. Taking into consideration the documentary evidence, the oral evidence of P.W.1, the occupation of the deceased and, more particularly, the date of the accident in the year 2009, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-.

8.4. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- was fixed without sufficient evidence, this Court is of the view that the said amount cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the occupation of the deceased, his alleged employment of driver in Kuwait and the period of the accident.

8.5. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the fixation of the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal thereafter adopted the multiplier of 14 and deducted one-fourth of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Considering the number of dependents, including the minor children, the said deduction is appropriate.

8.6. The compensation awarded under the other heads is also found to be in accordance with the applicable principles. The appellant has not demonstrated any material error or perversity in the assessment made by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.

8.7. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal.

9. Conclusion

9.1. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 27.02.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pattukkottai, is hereby confirmed.

9.2. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire balance amount, if any, payable under the award, together with accrued interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

9.3. From the record proceedings, it is clear that the 1st respondent died leaving her legal heir, namely, her children respondent Nos.2 to 4 who were already on record. Therefore, her share amount is hereby directed to be apportioned equally by the respondent Nos.2 to 4. similarly, the 5th respondent died leaving his wife 6th

respondent. Hence, his share is hereby directed to be given to the 6th respondent. Accordingly, the apportionment is redetermined hereunder: 2nd Respondent Rs.4,30,000/- 3rd respondent Rs.4,30,000/- 4th respondent Rs.4,30,000/- 6th respondent Rs.1,80,000/-

9.4. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount in the apportionment stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sbn

To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Pattukottai.

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. sbn CMA(MD) No. 350 of 2015 02-11-2026