IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 18.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

1.Praveenkumar

2.Pradeep Kumar (Minor) rep. by his st brother, 1 petitioner as Natural Guardian and Next Friend.

3.Bhagyamma

4.Gangaiah ... Appellants vs.

1.Boya Kesalu

2.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, nd Oriental House, 2 Floor, Old No.115, New No.216, Prakasam Road, Broadway, Chennai – 600 018. ...

Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the amount awarded in MCOP No.7885 of 2018 dated 28.03.2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (In the II Court of Small Causes, Chennai).

For Appellants : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj For Respondents : Mr.J.Chandran for R2 J U D G M E N T Not being satisfied with the Award passed in M.C.O.P.No.7885 of

2018 dated 28.03.2022 on the file of the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (In the II Court of Small Causes, Chennai), the legal heirs of one Gangadhar have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation.

2. By consent, this civil miscellaneous appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the second respondent. Perused the relevant records.

5.The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- for the death of one Gangadhar, who succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident that took place on 02.12.2018.

6. The Tribunal upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side, granted compensation of Rs.24,38,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition and the amounts granted under various heads are given hereunder:-

“Towards loss of dependency Rs.23,62,500/-, towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, towards loss of love and affection Rs.44,000/-, towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-, totally a sum of Rs.24,38,000/- is granted.”

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants strenuously argued that the deceased was working as a driver in the Government of Kuwait and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month, but the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income at Rs.15,000/-, which is inadequate, and therefore sought for enhancement of compensation.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that no proof was produced to show that the deceased was working in Kuwait and no other concrete evidence was marked. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, which is reasonable. He further argued that, taking into account the age, avocation of the deceased, and other relevant details, the amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable and sought confirmation of the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

9. It has come on record through the evidence of P.W.1, Praveenkumar, that the deceased, who was his father, was working in a private agency in Kuwait and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. Ex.P.4 is the passport of the deceased, which reflects that he had visited Kuwait. Ex.P.5 is the driving licence of the deceased issued by the Government of Kuwait. However, no document has been marked to establish the proof of income of the deceased at the relevant point of time. The date of the accident is 02.12.2018. As per Ex.P.4 (Passport), the age of the deceased at the relevant point of time is taken as 44 years. Though no concrete evidence, such as Bank Passbook or pay slip, was produced, this Court, considering the above details, deems it fit to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/-.

10. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), 25% of the inc