IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM DATED: 18.02.2026 THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.

C.M.A.No. 343 of 2026 and C.M.P. No.4339 of 2026 The United India Insurance Company Limited, The Divisional Office, Auroindo Road, Block 19 Neyveli-3. …Appellant Vs.

1. Vinitha

2.Minor Vaishnavi

3.Minor Kailash

4.Minor Jairish (2 to 4 Minor respondents represented by their mother

1st respondent Vinitha)

5.Rajalakshmi

6.The Managing Partner Aghin Roadways, No.5/93 Opposite Kaniyur Checkpost, Karumanthampatti, Coimbatore 641 660 … Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the Award and decree dated 20.04.2023 made in M.C.O.P No.45 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Thitakudi.

For Appellant : Mr. J. Chandran For Respondents : Mr. S. Udhayakumar for R1 to R5

JUDGMEN T

This Appeal is directed against the award dated dated 20.04.2023 made in M.C.O.P No.45 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Thitakudi.

2. Shortly stated, on 17.08.2021 at about 16.30 hours, the deceased Jayavel was riding motorcycle with one Kavitha as pillion rider from Veppur to Thitagudi. He stopped his two wheeler near burial ground between Eriyur and Kothatai village and took a short break. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 37 CC 4968, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the back of the deceased’ two wheeler, due to which, he fell down and the back tyre of the lorry ran over him leading to his demise on the spot.

3. The claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased. A claim petition was filed before the Claims Tribunal by the claimants for the death of the deceased Jayavel, claiming a total sum of Rs,70,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The claim was opposed by the appellant / Insurance Company.

5. The learned Tribunal, after trying the issues, vide its order dated

20.04.2023 partly allowed the claim and awarded a sum of Rs.34,03,000/- to the claimants

6. Aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company is on appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company, the Claims Tribunal, having observed that no document was filed to prove the income of the deceased, has erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-. He would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased since he did not wear helmet at the time of accident. Hence, prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that, the learned Tribunal, upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has awarded just compensation, which warrants any interference by this Court.

8. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

9. The findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the involvement of the vehicle in question, the negligence fixed on the part of the 1^st respondent, and the deceased having sustained fatal injuries which ultimately resulted in his death, are not in dispute. The claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement. Even otherwise, after going through the materials on record, the aforesaid findings of the learned Tribunal appear to be quite correct. The findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and there is no ground to interfere with the above findings of the learned Tribunal. Hence, the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard are affirmed.

10. Now, the question arises as to whether the Tribunal erred fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- without any proof of income.

11. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that no proof has been adduced by the claimants for the income of the deceased. The Tribunal, however, has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-, which, this Court feels, is on the higher side. Hence, considering the year of accident and ther