IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM DATED: 11.02.2026 THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.

C.M.P. No.32033 of 2025 The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, D. No.64, Sai Towers, Pidamaneri Main Road, Dharmapuri Town, Taluk and District. …Appellant Vs.

1. Devika

2.Govindhammal

3. Kesavan

4.R. Madhankumar … Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the decree and judgment dated 03.10.2023 passed in M.C.O.P. No.456 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.

For Appellant : Mr. S. Dhakshnamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.M. Selvam, for R1 to R3 R4 - Notice dispensed with.

JUDGMEN T

The appeal is directed against the award dated 03.10.2023 passed in M.C.O.P. No.456 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.

2. Shortly stated, on 08.09.2020, when the deceased Perumal, as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 30-T-1551, was proceeding from Ramanaickenpalayam to his house, near Saravana Natukoli Hotel, Thennangudi Palayam, a car bearing Registration No.TN05-BE-9451, coming in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling, due to which, the said Perumal sustained injuries and died on the sport.

3. The claimants are the wife and parents of the deceased. They filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased Perumal, claiming a total sum of Rs,50,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company.

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

03.10.2023 partly allowed the claim and awarded a sum of Rs.34,01,800/- as compensation to the claimants and directed the appellant / Insurance Company to pay the said amount to the claimants, in the first instance, and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, as the offending vehicle did not have fitness certificate at the time of accident.

6. Aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company is on appeal. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.17,000/-, without taking into consideration the prevailing wages for the unskilled labour in the region where the deceased carried on his avocation. Hence, prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 /

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 of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the deceased having sustained fatal injuries which ultimately resulted in his death, are against the respondents in the claim petition. 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 in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.17,000/- without considering the prevailing wages for the unskilled labour in the region where the deceased carried on his avocation.

11. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Tribunal, after observing that the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.17,000/-. In the circumstances, this Court deems it fit to fix the in