CMA.No.869 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 27.03.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CMA No.869 of 2023 1. Thirunamalli Vijayamma 2. Chuttu Nirma 3. Mogullagunta Sujatha ... Appellants Vs. 1. Badveli Sunil 2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Motor Third Party Hub, Silingi Building, 4th floor, No.134, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to enhance the compensation awarded in judgment and decree dated 20.01.2023 in MCOP No.5395 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. For appellants : Ms.D.Jeevitha for Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondents : Mr.D.Bhaskaran for second respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.869 of 2023 JUDGMENT Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come before this court by filing the present appeal. 2. It is the case of the claimants that their father died in a road accident that had occurred on 03.07.2019. According to the claimants, the deceased was walking along the Vaddigunta Kandriga Venkatagiri Cross Road near Mandal Naidupet, Vaddigunta Village and at that time a lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. As a result of accident, he sustained injuries and died in the hospital on the same day. The claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-. 3. The first respondent, owner of the lorry remained exparte and the claim petition was resisted by the second respondent, insurer of the lorry on the ground that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.869 of 2023 4. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and quantified the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.2,10,000/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the amount of Rs.3,000/- fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the deceased is very much on lower side, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, it needs enhancement. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent by taking this court to the evidence of PW1, submits that the PW1 clearly admitted that the claimants had been maintaining the deceased out of their pocket and hence the deceased cannot be treated as a earning member of the family. Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.869 of 2023 7. Since no arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the second respondent with regard to the questions of liability and negligence, the facts necessary to decide those questions are not considered in this appeal. 8. The first claimant examined herself as PW1 and in her evidence she deposed as follows. ** vd; jfg;gdhUf;F eh';fs; K:d;W kfs;fs;/ K:tUf;Fk; jpUkzkhfp mtuth; fzth; tPl;oy; jdpj;jdpna trpj;J tUfpnwhk;/ v';fSf;F xU mz;zd; ,Uf;fpwhh;/ mth; fhykhfptpl;lhh;/ Mdhy; mtUila thhpRfs; cs;shh;fs;/ mth;fs; ,e;j kDtpy; jug;gpdh; ,y;iy/ tpgj;jpw;F Kd;ng v';fs; mz;zd; ,we;Jtpl;lhh;/ ehd; fhty;epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; jutpy;iy/ tpgj;ij ehd; nehpy; ghh;f;ftpy;iy/ fhty; epiya Mtz';fshd khjphp tiuglk; kw;Wk; Fw;wg;gj;jphpf;if Mfpatw;iw jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; mJgw;wp vd; tHf;fwp"Uf;F jhd; bjhpa[k;/ eh';fs; jpUkzkhfp jdpna trpg;gjhy;. v';fs; jfg;gdhhpd; tUkhdj;ij rhh;e;J ,y;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ vd; jfg;gdhiu eh';fs; kDjhuh;fs; jhd; gzk; bryt[ bra;J guhkhpj;J te;njhk;/ ** https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.869 of 2023 9. A perusal of evidence of PW1 would make it clear that the claimants had been maintaining their father (deceased) by spending out of their pocket. Therefore, in view of the categorical admission made by the PW1, this court is not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants to enhance the notional income of the deceased. If the deceased was an earning member, having his own independent source, absolutely there would be no necessity for the claimants to maintain him out of their pocket. In such circumstance, I do not find anything to enhance the notional income fixed by the Tribunal and hence, the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency is confirmed. 10. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- each to the claimants towards loss of love and affection. However, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi Case, the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- each. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.90,000/- awarded under the head loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/-. Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.869 of 2023 11. The amount awarded under the heads loss of estate and Funeral expenses are confirmed. 12. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under: Sl. No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of dependency 90,000 90,000 confirmed 2. Loss of estate 15,000 15,000 confirmed 3. loss of love and affection 90,000 1,20,000 enhanced 4. Funeral expenses 15,000 15,000 confirmed Total 2,10,000 2,40,000 enhanced by 30,000 13. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,10,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.2,40,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.869 of 2023 14. The second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The finding of the Tribunal to pay and recovery is affirmed. 15. On such deposit being made by the second respondent, the claimants shall be permitted to withdraw the compensation amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, by making formal application before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 27.03.2025 Index :Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No mst To 1. The Chief Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.869 of 2023 S.SOUNTHAR, J. mst CMA No.869 of 2023 27.03.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis