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. ... 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.7892 of 2018 dated 28.03.2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / 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.7892 of

2018 dated 28.03.2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / II Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the sons of one Vijaya 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.40,00,000/- for the death of one Vijaya, 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.14,75,501/- 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.14,00,001/-, 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.14,75,501/- is granted.”

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants strenuously contended that, as per the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P7), the age of the deceased is taken as 40 years, whereas the death certificate reflects the fact that her age as 36 years. Despite this discrepancy, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the age of the deceased as 40 years and applied multiplier of 14, which is incorrect. He further submitted that 40% of the income ought to have been added towards future prospects while computing the loss of dependency. It was also argued that the notional monthly income of the deceased, fixed at Rs.10,000/-, is inadequate, and that the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection is insufficient. Hence, the claimants sought for enhancement of compensation.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the amounts awarded under the various heads by the Tribunal are reasonable and justified, and therefore do not warrant any interference by this Court.

9. It has come on record through the evidence of P.W.1, Praveenkumar, that the deceased was working as tailor and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, no document is marked. As regards the age of the deceased, as per the postmortem certificate it reflects the age of the deceased as 35 years, whereas as per the Ex.P.8 death certificate of the deceased, her age is 36 years at the relevant point of time.

10. In the claim petition, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 40 years. As per the claim petition, the age of the deceased has been taken as 40 years at the relevant point of time. The date of accident is 02.12.2018. In consideration of the above stated details, the notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.13,000/- per month.

11. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insur