IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

1.Thilagavathi

2.Minor. Vaishnavi

3.Minor. Nishal (A2 & A3 are rep. by their mother Thilagavathi/A1)

4.Sali

5.Palanisamy. ...Appellants vs.

1.G.Srinivasan

2.M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd Having branch office at No.88-F, Bye pass road, Dharmapuri District - 636701 Having Divisional Office at No.1, L.R.N.Building, L.R.N.Colony Saradha College Main Road, Salem - 636 007. ...Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.215 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Salem.

For Appellants : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For R-2 : Mr.D.Baskaran JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 19.02.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.215 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Salem, for enhancement of compensation.

2. The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Dharmalingam under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- for the death of Dharmalingam who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27.08.2018.

4. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side, passed an award for a sum of Rs.30,66,352/- with interest at the rate of

7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition.

5. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads are given hereunder:

6. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would vehemently argue that the amount awarded under the head for loss of consortium is inadequate. It is further argued that the contributory negligence to the tune of 15% was fixed upon the deceased is incorrect. He would further contend that as the claimants are five in number, for personal and living expenses, 1/3 was deducted by the Tribunal, which is incorrect and sought for enhancement of compensation.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company would strenuously contend that based upon the age, avocation and the other attending circumstances of the deceased, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are reasonable and acceptable and hence, it does not warrant any interference by this Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. The claim petition was filed by the wife, two minor children, father and mother of the deceased. As held in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), each claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. Therefore, for loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is granted in addition to the amount already granted by the Tribunal.

9. As regards contributory negligence, nothing is stated about the same in the counter of the second respondent. Based on Ex.P20/rough sketch and Ex.P2/Postmortem Certificate, the Tribunal has concluded that the deceased had also contributed towards negligence and fixed the same at 15%. Whether the deceased was wearing helmet was not elicited through the ocular witness and by relying upon the postmortem certificate fixing of contributory negligence upon the deceased is not acceptable and that portion of the finding of the Tribunal stands set aside.

10. Next issue is with regard to the deduction for living and personal expenses. The claimants are five in number as mentioned supra. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. As held in Sarala Varma -vs- Delhi T