CMA(MD)/1313/2023 of M.Muthupriya Vs M.Prasath on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The claimants in M.C.O.P. No.678 of 2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special District Judge for Motor Accident Claim Cases, have filed the present CMA(MD).No.1313 of 2023, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by judgment dated 03.11.2022.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased Muthuvel. The deceased was working as an agricultural labour. On 18.01.2019 at about 9.00 a.m., he travelled in a Mahindra Maxi Van bearing Registration No. TN-60-K-2193 for attending his work. The driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the brake, as a result of which the vehicle capsized and the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle. He sustained a severe head injury and subsequently died.

2.2. An FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The dependants thereafter filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest.

2.3. The Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the manner of the accident, negligence and quantum of compensation claimed.

2.4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked. Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked as Court documents.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence, the Tribunal fixed the negligence upon the driver of the offending insured vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.18,55,096/-, together with interest at the rate of 9.2% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Sl. No. Heads Amount

Loss of income 16,20,096/-

Loss of spousal consortium 40,000/-

Loss of Parental consortium 1,20,000/-

Loss of filial consortium 40,000/-

Funeral expenses 15,000/-

Loss of Estate 15,000/-

Transport expenses 5,000/- Total Awarded Amount Rs.18,55,096/-

3.2. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

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

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident and was engaged not only in his employment but also in agricultural and allied activities. The Tribunal, however, fixed his monthly income at only Rs.9,000/-, which is inadequate.

4.2. It is further submitted that, having regard to the year of the accident, namely, 2019, and the principles laid down in Andal & Others v. Avinav Kannan & Another reported in 2019 (1) TN MAC 54 (DB), and the subsequent decisions concerning assessment of income by adopting the cost inflation index, the monthly income ought to have been fixed at a higher amount. Hence, the learned counsel seeks enhancement of the compensation.

5. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that there is no documentary evidence establishing the alleged higher income of the deceased. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, rightly fixed the monthly income at Rs.9,000/-. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

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

7. The point for determination is:

(i) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal?

8. Discussion and Findings:

8.1. The evidence of P.W.1 indicates that the deceased was engaged in agricultural activities and allied work and was earning an income therefrom. The said evidence has not been given due consideration while determining the monthly income.

8.2. The accident occurred in the year 2019. While determining the income in the absence of reliable documentary evidence, the Court is required to adopt a realistic and reasonable approach having regard to the year of accident, the occupation of the deceased and the prevailing economic conditions.

8.3. The principles relating to adoption of the cost inflation index laid down in the decisions relied upon by the appellants, including Andal & Others v. Avinav Kannan & Another reported in 2019 (1) TN MAC 54 (DB), is also relevant for determining a reasonable notional income. The said approach enables the Court to avoid fixing an income which is disproportionately low having regard to the year in which the accident occurred.

8.4. Applying the said principle, and adopting the relevant cost inflation index for the year 2019, the monthly income is reassessed at Rs.14,108/-. The deceased was aged 46 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, 25% towards future prospects is added. Thus, Rs.14,108/- + 25% = Rs.17,635/- per month.

8.5. There were five dependants. Therefore, applying the appropriate deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family would be 3/4th. The loss of dependency is accordingly calculated as follows: Rs.17,635 × 3/4 × 12 × 14 = Rs.22,22,010/-.

8.6. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is reassessed at Rs.22,22,010/-. So far as the other heads of compensation are concerned, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are found to be reasonable and do not call for further enhancement. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under the remaining heads is confirmed.

8.7. Thus, the total compensation shall be recalculated by substituting Rs.22,22,010/- towards loss of dependency in place of the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the said head, while retaining the remaining heads as awarded by the Tribunal.

8.8. It is reported that the 5th appellant died during the pendency of this case, leaving behind appellant Nos. 1 to 4 as her legal heirs. Accordingly, her amount is hereby directed to be apportioned to the remaining claimants.

9. Conclusion:

9.1. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant 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 income 16,20,096/- 22,22,010/- Enhanced

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

Loss of Parental consortium 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/- Confirmed

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

Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed

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

Transport expenses 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed Total Awarded Amount Rs.18,55,096/- Rs.24,57,010/- Enhanced

10. Result:

10.1. Accordingly, CMA(MD).No.1313 of 2023 is partly allowed.

10.2. The award dated 03.11.2022 in MCOP No.678 of 2021 by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special District Judge, Madurai is enhanced from Rs.18,55,096/- to Rs.24,57,010/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

10.3. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire enhanced compensation, together with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal, after adjusting 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 1 to 4 are entitled to withdraw their amount fixed by tribunal along with 5th claimant amount in accordance with the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 02.11.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: 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 CMA(MD) No. 1313 of 2023 02.11.2026