IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 09.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

1.Rajarathinam

2.Soundarya

3.Gnanasekar ...Appellants vs.

1.P.K.Pranuvisakan

2. United India Insurance Company Limited Having its branch office at 14/1-77-B, Salem Main Road, Puduchampalli, Raman Nagar Post, Mettur Dam, Salem District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Court, Pollachi.

For Appellants : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran For Respondent no.2 : Mr.D.Venkatachalam JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 02.04.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Court, Pollachi, 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 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Selvathal, who died in a road traffic accident that took place on

09.11.2018.

4. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence and after hearing arguments advanced by either side, passed an award for a sum of Rs.80,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The amounts granted under various heads are given hereunder:

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the deceased, who was working as Head Mistress in Panchayat Union Primary School at the age of 48 years, was drawing monthly salary of Rs.75,995/-. The Tribunal did not add future prospects while computing the loss of dependency. He would further contend that the claimants are three in number and the amount awarded for loss of consortium is not adequate and sought for enhancement of compensation.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company would argue that based on the age, occupation of the deceased and other attending circumstances, the amounts awarded under different heads by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable and acceptable. However, the Tribunal, without deducting medical allowance of Rs.300/- and professional tax of Rs.200/-, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.75,995/- and without deducting income tax, granted Rs.79,03,480/- for loss of dependency.

7. It has come on record through evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased had been working as Head Mistress of Panchayat Union Primary School at the relevant point of time and was drawing gross salary of Rs.75,995 as per Ex.P8/Pay Certificate. The Tribunal, while computing loss of dependency, has taken the gross salary of the deceased (Rs.75,995/-) and arrived at the annual income. After deducting 1/3 for personal and living expenses by multiplying 13 M, it worked out to Rs.79,03,480/-.

8. As per Ex.P8/Pay certificate of the deceased, she was drawing gross salary of Rs.75,995/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in various cases, has held that the allowance which is personal in nature cannot be added with the salary. In this case, an amount of Rs.300/- which was granted under the head of medical allowance for the Government servants and a sum of Rs.200/-, the professional tax, has to be deducted from the salary. Therefore, the total salary to be taken for the purpose of computing loss of dependency is Rs.75,495/-. To buttress his contention, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the following judgements:

1. Raghuvir Singh Matolya & Ors. vs. Hari Singh Malviya & Ors.

reported in 2009 (15) SCC 363;

2. National Insurance Company vs. Nalini and others reported in

2021 (1) TNMAC 79 (SC).

9. By relying upon Ex.P17/Driving licence of the deceased, Ex.P25/ID Card of the deceased and based upon the evidence of P.W.3/D.E.O, Mr.Sivachandran, the a