The Managing Director vs N Nithya
- Court
- Madras High Court
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2026
CORAM
M.JOTHIRAMAN
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
CMA No.1827 of 2026
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 7. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.N.Nithya
2.K.Balasundar
3.Minor. K.Thanukesvaaran
rd
(Minor 3 respondent represented by
the next friend mother first respondent)
4.R.Bakiyam ...Respondents
CMA No.2922 of 2025
1.N.Nithya
2.K.Balasundar
3.Minor. K.Thanukesvaaran
rd
(Minor 3 respondent represented by
the next friend
4.R.Bakiyam ... Appellants
Vs.
_________
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 7. ...Respondent
COMMON PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
30.10.2023 made in MCOP No.52 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Attur.
Appearance in CMA No.1827 of 2026
For Appellant : Mr.D.Nitin
For Respondents : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
Appearance in CMA No.2922 of 2025
For Appellants : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondent : Mr.D.Nitin
COMMON JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful Transport Corporation has preferred an appeal in CMA
No.1827 of 2026 challenging the quantum of compensation arrived by the
Tribunal. Unsuccessful claimants have preferred an appeal in CMA No.2922
of 2025 challenging the fixation of 10% negligence on the part of the
deceased and also seeking enhancement of compensation.
_________
Page 2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
2. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, for the death of one Kesavan, who died in a road accident that
took place on 25.02.2022. The first claimant is the wife ; claimants 2 & 3 are
sons and fourth claimant is the mother of the deceased Kesavan.
3. According to the claimants, on 25.02.2022, the deceased was riding
the Bajaj Platina motorcycle bearing Registration No TN 30 Q 4959 from
Narasingapuram to go to Hotel Saravanabhavan situated at Attur and he was
proceeding on the left side of the road from west towards east and it was
proceeding in front of Royal Enfield showroom near Udayarpalayam at
about 12.20 pm. At that time, the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation bus bearing Registration No TN 30 N 1949 was driving rashly
and negligently and it was coming from east towards west on the wrong side
of the road and the same dashed against the deceased motorcycle. Due to the
said impact, the deceased was thrown out from the motorcycle and he
sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was taken to
Government Hospital, Attur and thereafter, he was referred to Salem
Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem.
_________
Page 3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
For further treatment, he was taken to Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore.
However, he succumbed to injuries on the same day.
4. The respondent / Transport Corporation has filed counter statement
wherein they denied the manner of accident. It is also stated that the
deceased had driven the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without
wearing helmet and not having valid driving license and lost his balance and
dashed against the TNSTC bus. Therefore, the respondent driver is in no
way responsible for the accident.
5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first claimant
was examined herself as PW1, one Senthilvelavan, an eyewitness was
examined as PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 were marked. On behalf of the
respondent / Transport Corporation, RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 was
marked.
6. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
came to a conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to rash and
_________
Page 4 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
negligent act of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal also finds that the
deceased was driven the motorcycle without valid driving license at the time
of accident and therefore, fixed 10% negligence on the part of the deceased.
7. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed a sum
of Rs.15,000/- as notional monthly income of the deceased, added 10%
th
towards future prospects of the deceased, deducted 1/4 income of the
deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, applied
multiplier '13' and awarded a sum of Rs.19,30,500/- as compensation under
the head Loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded compensation
under various heads as hereunder :
S.No Heads Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
1. Loss of dependency 19,30,500/-
2. Loss of estate 16,500/-
3. Loss of consortium 44,000/-
4. Funeral expenses 16,500/-
5. Loss of filial consortium 40,000/-
Total
Less : 10% contributory negligence
Rs.20,47,500/-
(-) Rs.2,04,750/-
Rs.18,42,750/-
_________
Page 5 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
8. Aggrieved over the same, the Transport Corporation has preferred
an appeal in CMA No.1827 of 2026 challenging the quantum of
compensation arrived by the Tribunal, particularly challenging the adoption
of multiplier '13' ; the claimants have preferred an appeal in CMA No.2922
of 2025 challenging the fixation of 10% negligence on the part of the
deceased and also seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant / Transport Corporation would
submit that in the absence of proof of monthly income, the Tribunal ought
not to have fixed Rs.15,000/- as notional monthly income of the deceased.
The Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier '13' instead the Tribunal ought
to have adopted multiplier '11'. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads appears to be reasonable and proper which does not
require any interference. The learned counsel further would submit that upon
considering the fact that the deceased was not having valid and effective
driving license at the time of accident, the Tribunal has rightly fixed 10%
negligence on the part of the deceased.
_________
Page 6 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
10. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would
submit that the Tribunal failed to consider that at the time of accident, the
deceased was the proprietor of Hotel Sri Saravana Bhavan and earning
monthly income of Rs.50,000/- and the same was substantiated with
sufficient evidence, under such circumstances it is not correct to hold that
the deceased was drawing income of Rs.15,000/- is not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the accident took place in the
year 2022 and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 53 years
and therefore, fixing Rs.15,000/- as notional monthly income of the claimant
is not proper. Further would submit that the Tribunal failed to award
compensation under the head loss of love and affection and transportation
charges. To strength his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Krishna Kanta Singh vs The
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in 2025 INSC
394
11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
_________
Page 7 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
12. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident. The
only grievance of the claimants is that fixing 10% negligence on the part of
the deceased on the ground that the deceased not possessing valid and
effective driving license at the time of accident is unsustainable in law. It is
relevant note that the claimants have not placed the copy of the driving
license of the deceased. To substantiate their claim, the claimants have filed
valid driving license of the deceased at the time of accident. PW2 who is an
eyewitness to the accident had categorically deposed that at the time of
accident the deceased was wearing helmet. It is relevant to note that when
the Transport Corporation has taken a specific plea that the deceased was not
having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of
accident, burden is cast upon any official from the concern Regional
Transport Officer to establish the fact that the deceased was not having valid
driving license at the time of accident. However, considering the fact that on
the side of the claimants a copy of the driving license has not been marked
as documents. The Tribunal finds that at the time of accident the deceased
was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and
also applied the ratio laid down by this Court in Kulavani vs Kathirvelan
_________
Page 8 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
reported in 2021(SCC) online (Mad.) 2232 fixed 10% negligence on the part
of the deceased. This Court is of the considered view that at the time of
accident, the deceased was aged about 53 years and he was a proprietor of
the hotel, namely, Sri Saravana Bhavan situated at Attur and drove the
vehicle without valid and effective driving license is not proper and fixation
of 10% of negligence on the part of the deceased requires interference and
5% negligence is fixed on the deceased.
13. With regard to quantum of compensation, PW1 deposed that the
deceased was a proprietor of Sri Saravana Bhavan hotel situated at Attur and
was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. She also relied upon Ex.P12 /
copy of the partnership deed of the deceased, which is not a registered
document. The Tribunal considering the income tax returns standing in the
name of the deceased, wherein total annual income is Rs.3,63,175/- and also
mentioned Rs.3,98,000/-. A perusal of Ex.P13, Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 wherein
the source of income is mentioned share of copy of interest on capital and
also mentioned salary from firm and also mentioned other income. This
Court is of the considered view that in the absence of proof of monthly
_________
Page 9 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
income of the deceased, the income tax return relied upon by the claimants
wherein also mentioned about the share profit and also other income
mentioned, in such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 53 years
and the accident took place in the year 2022, fixation of Rs.15,000/- as
notional monthly income of the deceased appears to be meagre and this
Court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.20,000/- as notional monthly income of
the deceased, which would meed the ends of justice. It is relevant to note
that there is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased at the time of
accident. By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Smt. Sarala Varma and Others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC) the correct multiplier is '11'
whereas the Tribunal applying multiplier '13' is not proper. The Tribunal
considering the number of dependents on the income of the deceased,
th
deducted 1/4 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which is
proper. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of
dependency would be modified as hereunder :
Calculation :
_________
Page 10 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
Notional income : Rs.20,000/-
Future prospects : 10%
(Rs.20,000/- + 10% = 22,000/-)
Multiplier : 11
Rs.22,000/- x 12 x 11 x 3/4 = Rs.21,78,000/-
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of
consortium is meagre and therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the
same to Rs.1,76,000/- (the claimants are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each x 4)
towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation
under the head transportation charges and this Court is inclined to grant a
sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are appears to be reasonable and
proper which does not require any interference.
14. The following tabular column would show the enhanced amount
awarded by this Court under various heads.
S.No Heads Amount awarded by this
Court
1. Loss of dependency 21,78,000/-
_________
Page 11 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
S.No Heads Amount awarded by this
Court
2. Loss of estate 16,500/-
3. Loss of consortium
(Rs.44,000/- x 4)
1,76,000/-
4. Funeral expenses 16,500/-
5. Loss of filial consortium 40,000/-
6. Transportation charges 10,000/-
Total
Less : 5% contributory
negligence
Rs.24,37,000/-
(-) Rs.1,21,850/-
Rs.23,15,150/-
15. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.23,15,150 /-. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
16. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.23,15,150/-
_________
Page 12 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
iii. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay the court fee for the
enhanced compensation amount, if any, and the Registry is directed to
draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee.
iv. The respondent/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount of Rs.23,15,150/- (less the amount
already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of
MCOP No.52 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Attur, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order/uploading of this order. The
claimants are not entitled for any interest on the enhanced
compensation for the delay period, if any.
v. On such deposit being made, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw
the same on filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. The
ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal shall be kept intact.
_________
Page 13 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
vi. The manner and mode of disbursement of compensation shall be as
per the order of the Tribunal.
28.10.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
mtl
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Subordinate Court, Attur.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
_________
Page 14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.
mtl
C.M.A.Nos.1827 of 2026 & 2922 of 2025
and C.M.P No.14442 of 2026
28.10.2026
_________
Page 15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )