Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4902
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager – Appellant
Versus
P. Mariammal and Ors. – Respondents
C.M.A.(MD)No.831 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)No.2180 of 2024
Decided On : 04-08-2025
For the Appellant : Mrs. K.R. Shivashankari.
For the Respondents: M/s. S. Prabha.
The court ruled the proper deduction for personal expenses is 1/3rd for dependents of the deceased, resulting in a justified reduction of the awarded compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against the award for compensation regarding the death of the deceased in an accident - Insurer challenges quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal - The Tribunal fixed the deceased's income at Rs.7,500/- without supporting evidence was contested; however, the Court found it reasonable based on the deceased’s occupation as a coolie and age. The Tribunal's deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses was held incorrect; it should have been 1/3rd as per legal precedent. Total modified compensation awarded is Rs.6,90,000/- with reduced consortium and funeral expenses. (Paras 8, 12, 15, 17)
(B) Issues addressed include the rationality of the monthly income fixed, the appropriateness of the deduction for personal expenses, and the overall adequacy of the compensation awarded. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) The court affirmed that the absence of evidence for alleged income was significant and revisited previous judgments to align the compensation with legal standards. (Paras 11, 14).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of the appeal regarding assessment of compensation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. challenge to the quantum of compensation based on income and personal expense deductions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's findings on income assessment and applicable legal standards for deductions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final decision on modified compensation and interest. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2014 dated 04.10.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Court, Sivakasi.
2. The appellant/insurer, who was made liable to pay compensation of Rs.9,75,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) with interest at 9% per annum and costs to the respondents 1 to 3/ claimants 1 to 3 for the death of Pitchaipandi, consequent to an accident occurred on 12.08.2014, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded at, by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status/ranking in the Tribunal.
4. During trial, the claimants examined the first claimant Tmt.Mariammal as P.W.1 and exhibited 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The first respondent remained ex-parte. The insurer adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.
5. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed the impugned award dated 04.10.2017 holding that the first respondent's driver was responsible for the accident mulcted liability on both the first respondent and the insurer jointly and severally and directed them to pay compensation of Rs.9,75,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) to the claimants 1 to 3 with interest and costs. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the insurer has preferred the present appeal.
6. It is pertinent to note that the insurer has not challenged the negligence aspects and the consequent liability fixed but only challenged the quantum of compensation.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer would submit that though the claimants have alleged that the deceased was doing piglet business and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, they have not chosen to produce any evidence, that the Tribunal, without any basis, has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/-, which is on higher side, that when the claim petition was pending, mother of the deceased, who was shown as fourth claimant, had died but the Tribunal instead of deducting 1/3rd of the income, deducted 1/4th of the income for personal and living expenses of the deceased and is very much against the settled position, that the compensation awarded towards consortium and love and affection are also on higher side, that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at 7.5% per annum but awarded interest at 9% per annum, which is very much on higher side and that therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal, considering the deceased as a coolie, has rightly fixed the monthly income at Rs.7,500/- and deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, that the Tribunal has awarded amounts under the other heads reasonably and that therefore there is nothing to interfere with the impugned award.
9. The points that arise for consideration are :
1) Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.7,500/- despite non-production of any evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased?
2) Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, when admittedly, three claimants have proceeded with the claim petition?
3) Whether the compensation awarded at by the Tribunal is just and proper and is in accordance with law?
10. The claiman
