IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

1.Rani 2.Raja

Kamaleshan(Died)

3.Govindammal ... Appellants

vs.

1.Munna

2.The Manager(T.P.Claim),

Future General India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Office at 1st, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Plot No.55,

Old No.27, Vijay Raghava Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

3.The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Rangapuram, Vellore-9.

(No relief sought against the 1st and 3rd

respondents hence notice may be

dispensed with) ... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, to enhance the dated 02.06.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court,

(Fast Track Court ) Vellore District.

For appellants : Mr.C.Prabakaran For R1 : Mr.E.Kannadasan

For R2 : Mrs.C.Harini

for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Assoc.

J U D G M E N T This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 02.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court ) Vellore District, for enhancement of compensation. 2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The dependents of the deceased Govindaraj, who sustained fatal injuries in a motor accident that took place on 06.07.2016, filed a claim petition,claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. The Tribunal upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side, granted compensation of Rs.10,27,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are tabulated hereunder :

5. The manner in which the accident occurred is not in dispute. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would contend that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the relevant point of time, was engaged in the textile business, and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The notional income of the deceased fixed at Rs.6,000/- p.m, is therefore very low. He would further contend that the amount awarded under the head loss of consortium is also inadequate.

6. The Original Claim Petition was filed by the wife, sons and mother of the deceased Govindaraj. The wife, son and mother of the deceased Govindaraj have been arrayed as appellants No. 1 to 3 respectively. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the third claimant Kamaleshan, son of the deceased Govindaraj passed away on 22.05.2023.

7. Date of the accident is 06.07.2016. It is the evidence of P.W1 that the deceased was engaged in the textile business and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. To substantiate the said details, documents such as, bank passbook and income tax return etc., were not marked. Therefore, in consideration of the above said details, the notional income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.13,000/- per month. As per Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, namely the post mortem certificate and death certificate, the age of the deceased is fixed as 50 years. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Prenay Sethi and Others, 2017(2) TNMAC 609 SC, for the age group of persons between 40 and 50 years, 25% has to be added as future prospects while computing the monthly income of the deceased.

8. As held in Smt.Sarla varma and others vs Delhi Corporation and another reported in 2009(2) TNMAC 1 (SC), if the claimants are three in number, then 1/3^rd has to be deducted for personal and living expenses and the relevant multiplier to be adopted is '13'm. For computing loss of dependency, the following formula emerges:

For loss of dependency = [(Rs.13,000/ - _ 1/3)+ 25% x12x13m = Rs.16,90,104/-

9. In the given circumstances, for loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. As