CMA(MD)/728/2022 of A. John Benet Christry Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The claimant in M.C.O.P. No.589 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, has filed the present C.M.A.(MD).No.728 of 2022 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in M.C.O.P.No.589 of 2018 dated 29.10.2020.

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

3. Facts of the case:

3.1. The deceased Alexander was aged about 65 years at the time of the accident and had retired from service as a Siddha Medical Pharmacist. According to the claimant, even after retirement, the deceased was carrying on real-estate business.

3.2. On 06.11.2017 at about 10.45 p.m., when the deceased was riding his two-wheeler on the Palayamkottai–Ambasamudram Road, the Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-1888 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his two-wheeler. In the accident, the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently died. An FIR was registered against the driver of the Transport Corporation bus.

3.3. The claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest.

3.4. The Transport Corporation filed its counter disputing the manner of the accident and contending that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was contended that the deceased had lost his balance while

crossing the road and fell down, and therefore the Transport Corporation was not liable. The quantum of compensation was also disputed.

3.5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked, on the file of the claimants. On the side of the Transport Corporation, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

4. Findings of the Tribunal:

4.1. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus and awarded compensation of Rs.3,93,636/- under the following heads: S.No. Heads Amount in Rs.

Loss of Income 3,63,636/-

Funeral Expenses 15,000/-

Loss of Estate 15,000/- Total 3,93,636/-

4.2. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant (son of the deceased) has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.

5. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant:

5.1. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the deceased was a retired Siddha Medical Pharmacist and was receiving a monthly pension of Rs.8,659/-. In addition to the pension, he was also carrying on real-estate business. However, the Tribunal restricted the assessment of his monthly income to Rs.8,659/-. It was therefore submitted that the income requires to be reassessed having regard to his additional source of income.

6. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Transport Corporation:

6.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal had correctly taken into consideration the pension received by the deceased and that there was no reliable evidence establishing any definite income from the alleged real-estate business. Hence, no enhancement was warranted.

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

8. Discussion and findings:

8.1. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 65 years and was a

retired Siddha Medical Pharmacist. It is also the specific case of the claimant that, notwithstanding his retirement, the deceased was carrying on real-estate business. Though the income from the said business has not been established by producing regular accounts or other conclusive documentary evidence, the evidence on record cannot be completely disregarded.

8.2. The Tribunal had taken the monthly income only at Rs.8,659/-, corresponding to the pension received by the deceased. Having regard to the additional avocation stated by the claimant and the circumstances borne out by the record, the income requires a reasonable reassessment.

8.3. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,705/-. The deceased was aged about 65 years. At that age, no addition towards future prospects is warranted. The appropriate multiplier has to be applied having regard to his age and the number of dependants.

8.4. Accordingly, the loss of dependency shall be recalculated on the basis of the monthly income of Rs.13,705/- and the appropriate multiplier and deduction towards personal expenses applicable to the deceased.

8.5. The conventional heads are also reassessed. A sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium/love and affection, Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses.

9. Conclusion:

9.1. The other amounts, if any, awarded by the Tribunal under the respective heads and not challenged in the present appeal shall remain undisturbed, which is as follows: S.N o. Heads Award of Tribunal. Award of this Court Status

Loss of Income 3,63,636/- 5,75,652/- Enhanced

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 20,000/- Enhanced

Loss of Estate 15,000/- 10,000/- Reduced

Loss of Love and affection ---- 40,000/- Awarded

Transportation ---- 10,000/- Awarded Total 3,93,636/- 6,55,652/- Enhanced

10. Result

10.1. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.

10.2. The award dated 29.10.2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.589 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli is

hereby modified and enhanced from Rs.3,93,636/- to Rs.6,55,652/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit.

10.3. The respondent/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, together with interest and costs, after giving credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10.4. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount in accordance with law. 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 III Additional District Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli.

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. sbn CMA(MD) No. 728 of 2022 02-11-2026