CMA(MD)/369/2022 of RAMALINGASAMY Vs SEENIVASAN on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.929 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court dealing with M.C.O.P. cases, Tirunelveli, have filed the present C.M.A.(MD).No.369 of 2022, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by judgment and award dated 23.12.2021.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. Since the present appeal is confined to the enhancement of compensation, it is not necessary to deal in detail with the facts relating to negligence and liability. For the purpose of deciding the question of enhancement, the relevant facts are briefly set out hereunder.

2.2. The deceased, Nandakumar, was working as a Marketing Manager in Suguna Foods, Tiruchirappalli, and was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month. On 23.02.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., he was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-63-J-5439 on the Tanjavur–Tiruvarur Main Road. At that time, the offending

vehicle, namely, the Eicher lorry bearing Registration No.TN-69-Q-3499, insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler driven by the deceased. In the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The jurisdictional police registered a case against the driver of the Eicher lorry in Crime No.84 of 2016.

2.3. The claimants, being the dependants of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) with interest. The Insurance Company filed its counter denying the manner of the accident and disputing the negligence attributed to the driver of the lorry. The quantum of compensation was also disputed.

2.4. Before the Tribunal, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the Insurance Company, R.W.1, the driver of the Eicher lorry, was examined.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal fixed the negligence upon the driver of the lorry and fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.31,51,792/-, as compensation, by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.19,567/-, which is as follows:

Sl.No. Heads Amount in Rs

Loss of Dependency 30,81,792/-

Loss of Consortium to the wife 40,000/-

Loss of Estate 15,000/-

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Total 31,51,792/-

3.2. The Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal challenging the finding regarding negligence or the liability. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants Nos.2 and 3:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the salary certificate of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal, which disclosed a monthly salary of Rs.23,467/-, inclusive of variables and other allowances. The deceased was working as a Marketing Manager in Suguna Foods, a reputed establishment. The Tribunal, however, deducted the food allowance and other allowances and ultimately adopted only Rs.19,567/- as the monthly income. It was contended that the allowances forming part of the salary ought not to have been

excluded while determining the monthly income. The learned counsel further submitted that no amount was awarded towards loss of love and affection to the other claimants and therefore the compensation under the said head also requires to be enhanced.

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

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal was justified in excluding the food allowance and other allowances while determining the monthly income. It was contended that only the actual salary component could be taken into consideration. With regard to loss of love and affection, it was submitted that the Tribunal had already awarded adequate compensation and no further amount was required.

6. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. Whether the Tribunal has correctly arrived at the compensation?

8. Discussion on negligence:

8.1. The accident was caused by the insured lorry. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence, fixed the negligence upon the driver of the lorry and

fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. The said finding has not been challenged by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the finding regarding negligence and liability has attained finality.

9. Discussion on Monthly Income:

9.1. The principal question which arises for consideration is the determination of the monthly income of the deceased.

9.2. Ex.P4 salary certificate was produced before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were also examined to prove the salary and employment particulars. The evidence discloses that the deceased was employed as a Marketing Manager in Suguna Foods, Tiruchirappalli. The salary certificate discloses a monthly salary of Rs.23,467/-, inclusive of the allowances payable to him.

9.3. The fact that a portion of the salary is described as food allowance or other allowance cannot, by itself, be a ground for excluding such amount from the actual income of the deceased, particularly when the same formed part of the remuneration payable to him by his employer.

9.4. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Sangeetha v. O.M.R. Travels Access Private Limited and another, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 454. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the evidentiary value of the salary certificate, held that when the salary

certificate is produced and the employer has been examined, and nothing material has been elicited in cross-examination to establish that the document was fabricated or unreliable, the salary reflected therein cannot be discarded without adequate reasons.

9.5. In the present case also, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were examined to prove the employment and salary particulars of the deceased. Nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve the genuineness of the salary certificate. Therefore, there is no justification for excluding the allowances which formed part of the remuneration payable to the deceased. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to take Rs.23,467/- as the monthly income of the deceased instead of Rs.19,567/- adopted by the Tribunal.

9.6. The deceased was aged about 36 years. Therefore, 40% is added towards future prospects. Thus: Rs.23,467/- + 40% = Rs.32,853.80/-.

9.7. After deducting 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family would be 3/4th. Applying the multiplier of 14 adopted by the Tribunal, the loss of dependency is recalculated as follows: Rs.32,853.80 × 3/4 × 12 × 14 = Rs.41,39,578/-.

10. Discussion Loss of Consortium and Love and Affection:

10.1. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards consortium to the eligible claimant (wife).

10.2. So far as the other claimants are concerned, no amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection. Having regard to the relationship of the claimants with the deceased and the principles governing compensation under the conventional heads, this Court is inclined to award Rs.40,000/- each to the second third and fourth claimants towards loss of love and affection.

10.3. Accordingly, the compensation requires to be suitably enhanced.

10.4. Accordingly, the compensation under the conventional heads is recalculated as follows. The first claimant, being the wife of the deceased, is awarded Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium. The claimant Nos.2 to 4 are each awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection and consortium, as applicable. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate, is confirmed and the compensation towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded by this Court towards transportation expenses.

10.5. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.31,51,792/- is enhanced to the amount determined herein. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit.

11. Conclusion: Sl. No. Heads Award of Tribunal Re-quantified by this Court Status

Loss of Dependency 30,81,792/- 41,39,578/- Enhanced

Loss of Consortium to the wife 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed

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

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 25,000/- Enhanced

Loss of Love and affection (claimants 2 to 4) ---- 1,20,000/- Awarded

Transportation ---- 10,000/- Awarded Total 31,51,792/- 43,49,578/- Enhanced

12. Result:

12.1. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.

12.2. The award dated 23.12.2021 in M.C.O.P.No.929 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court dealing with M.C.O.P. cases, Tirunelveli, is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.31,51,792/-

to Rs.43,49,578/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

12.3. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount of Rs.43,49,578/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

12.4. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares in accordance with the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, subject to payment of the requisite court fee, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. 02.11.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sbn To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Judge),Tirunelveli.

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. sbn CMA(MD) No. 369 of 2022 02.11.2026