CMA(MD)/1128/2023 of Kavitha Vs Gokila Krishnan on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The claimants in M.C.O.P. No.152 of 2022, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special District Judge, Madurai, have filed the present C.M.A.(MD).No.1128 of 2023 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by the judgment dated 18.08.2023.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. Since the present appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation, the findings relating to the manner of the accident, negligence and liability need not be reconsidered in this appeal. On 12.11.2021 at about 7.45 p.m., the deceased, namely Venkadeshwaran, was travelling as a pillion rider on a two- wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-57-BU-0477 towards Dindigul to Sempatti Main Road. At that time, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-57- AS-9381, coming from the same direction, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and rammed into the two-wheeler. Due to the impact, the deceased was thrown off the vehicle and sustained fatal injuries. He subsequently succumbed to the injuries.

2.2. The claimants therefore filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-, contending that the deceased was running a grocery shop and earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month.

2.3. The Insurance Company resisted the claim petition, disputing the manner of the accident happened, and the negligence attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle and its liability to pay compensation. It was contended that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler.

2.4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal fixed the negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.14,75,000/- as compensation, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition. Sl.No. Heads Amounts in Rs.

Loss of Income 13,20,000/-

Loss of filial consortium 40,000/-

Loss of Parental consortium 80,000/-

Funeral expenses 15,000/-

Loss of estate 15,000/-

Transport expenses 5,000/-

Total Rs.14,75,000/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. The award amount has not been satisfied pending the appeal.

4. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of the accident and was running a grocery shop at Kumbaiyur. According to the learned counsel, the deceased was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month.

4.2. It was further submitted that Exs.P6, P7, P8 and P17, coupled with the bank transactions, clearly establish that the deceased was carrying on grocery business. Ex.P6 is the registration certificate issued by the Panchayat and Ex.P7 is the licence issued by the competent authority. Ex.P8 relates to the loan obtained by the deceased from the Cooperative Society for carrying on the business and the regular repayment of the said loan. Ex.P17 also supports the fact that the deceased was carrying on the business, including the use of weighing equipment. The bank transactions further indicate that the business was being carried on profitably. Hence, the monthly income fixed by the

Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- is on the lower side and requires enhancement.

5. Submission 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 there is no sufficient basis for enhancement. According to him, the mere production of a licence to run a grocery shop and certain entries in the bank account would not, by themselves, establish the actual income of the deceased. In the absence of legally admissible and reliable evidence regarding income, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the monthly income at Rs.15,000/-. Hence, the learned counsel sought dismissal of the appeal.

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

7. The principal question that arises for consideration in this appeal is

(i) Whether the monthly income of the deceased, as fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/-, requires enhancement on the basis of Exs.P6, P7, P8, P17 and the other materials relating to his grocery business and bank transactions?

8. Discussion

and

Findings:

8.1. P.W.1 has clearly deposed that the deceased was running a grocery shop. Ex.P6 is the registration certificate issued by the Panchayat, while Ex.P7 is the licence issued by the competent authority. Ex.P8 establishes that the deceased had obtained a loan from the Cooperative Society for carrying on his business and that the loan instalments were being regularly repaid. The regularity of such repayments, coupled with the other materials on record, lends support to the contention that the deceased was actively carrying on the business. Ex.P17 also supports the existence of the business, including the use of weighing equipment. The bank transactions placed before this Court further indicate that the deceased was engaged in regular business transactions.

8.2. It is true that no documentary evidence has been produced to establish the exact monthly income of the deceased. However, the absence of a precise income document cannot result in fixing an unrealistically low income when the evidence on record establishes the nature and existence of the business carried on by the deceased.

8.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, in the absence of direct documentary evidence regarding income, the Court is required to take a holistic view of the evidence available on record and arrive at a reasonable estimate by applying an element of guesswork. The determination of income in such circumstances is necessarily an exercise of reasonable estimation and cannot be reduced to mathematical precision.

8.4. In the present case, having regard to the age of the deceased, the nature of his business, the registration and licence documents, the loan transaction and its regular repayment, as well as the bank transactions evidencing the conduct of the business, this Court is of the view that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- is on the lower side. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- 8.5.Since the deceased was aged 52 years, 10% is added towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income works out to Rs.22,000/-. After deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses, the monthly contribution to the family is Rs.14,666.67. Applying the multiplier of 11, the loss of dependency is calculated as follows: Rs.22,000 × 2/3 × 12 × 11 = Rs.19,36,000/-.

8.6. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is fixed at Rs.19,36,000/-. Under the head of loss of spousal/parental consortium, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,20,000/-, which is retained. The amount awarded towards funeral expenses is enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The amount awarded towards loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- is retained. The amount awarded towards transportation is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.14,75,000/- to Rs.21,01,000/-.

9. Conclusion:

9.1. 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 (in Rs.) Re-quantified amount by this Court (in Rs.) Status

Loss

of dependency 13,20,000/- 19,36,000/- Enhanced

Loss of filial consortium 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed

Loss

of Parental consortium 80,000/- 80,000/- Confirmed

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

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

Transportatio n expenses 5,000/- 10,000/- Enhanced Total Awarded Amount Rs.14,75,000/ - Rs.21,01,000/ - Enhanced

10. Result:

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

10.2. The compensation award dated 18.08.2023 passed in M.C.O.P. No.152 of 2022 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Special District Judge, Madurai is enhanced from Rs.14,75,000/- to Rs.21,01,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

10.3. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount, together with proportionate interest, 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.

10.4. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount in accordance with the apportionment already fixed by the Tribunal. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs.

02.11.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No AKM To

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Special District Judge (MACT), Madurai

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

AKM C.M.A.(MD).No.1128 of 2023 Dated:02.11.2026