THE BRANCH MANAGER vs MUMTHAJ BEGAM
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
CNR:{HCMD010481662022}
AND
CMP(MD) NO. 6226 OF 2022
The Branch Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd,Sri
Meenakshi Plaza, I Floor, No.HIG 55, 80 Feet
Road,Anna Nagar, Madurai-20.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Mumthaj Begam
W/o.Nawshath Ali,No.68, Samathuvapuram,
Chithar Kottai, Ramanathapuram-623 513,
Ramnad District.
2. Asilina Begam,
D/o.Nawshath Ali,No.68, Samathuvapuram,
Chithar Kottai, Ramanathapuram-623 513,
Ramnad District.
3. Ralina Begam,
D/o.Nawshath Ali,No.68, Samathuvapuram,
Chithar Kottai, Ramanathapuram-623 513,
Ramnad District.
4. Fathima Beevi @ Olina Begam,
D/o.Nawshath Ali,No.68, Samathuvapuram,
Chithar Kottai, Ramanathapuram-623 513,
Ramnad District.
__________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
5. The Correspondent,
Krishna International School, Sakkaravalanaloor,
ECR, Devipattinam, Ramanathapuram-623 514,
Ramnad District.
..Respondent(s)
CMP(MD) No. 6226 of 2022
The Branch Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd,Sri
Meenakshi Plaza, I Floor, No.HIG 55, 80 Feet
Road,Anna Nagar, Madurai-20.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Mumthaj Begam
W/o.Nawshath Ali,No.68, Samathuvapuram,
Chithar Kottai, Ramanathapuram-623 513,
Ramnad District.
2. Asilina Begam,
D/o.Nawshath Ali,No.68, Samathuvapuram,
Chithar Kottai, Ramanathapuram-623 513,
Ramnad District.
3. Ralina Begam,
D/o.Nawshath Ali,No.68, Samathuvapuram,
Chithar Kottai, Ramanathapuram-623 513,
Ramnad District.
4. Fathima Beevi @ Olina Begam,
D/o.Nawshath Ali,No.68, Samathuvapuram,
Chithar Kottai, Ramanathapuram-623 513,
Ramnad District.
5. The Correspondent,
Krishna International School, Sakkaravalanaloor,
ECR, Devipattinam, Ramanathapuram-623 514,
Ramnad District.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
PRAYER: J-1 and J-33.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Under Section 173
of Motor Vehicle Act, to set aside the order passed in MCOP.No.652 of
2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Special District
Judge), Madurai District, dated 13-12-2021, and thus render justice.
CMP(MD) No. 6226 of 2022
PRAYER: To stay the operation of the fair and decreetal order dated 13-
12-2021 made in MCOP.No.652 of 2017 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special District Judge), Madurai District
pending disposal of the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and thus
render justice.
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
For Petitioner(s): K.R.Shivashankari
For Respondent(s): K. Muthumalai
V.Karuppaiah for R1 to R4
No appearance for R5
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Abdul Quddhose J.)
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the award dated 13.12.2021, passed by the learned
Special District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai, in
M.C.O.P.No.652 of 2017.
2. Under the impugned award, the appellant / Insurance
Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.44,47,584/- as
compensation to the respondents / claimants for the fatal accident caused
__________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
to one Nawshath Ali by a vehicle insured with the appellant / Insurance
Company.
3. The details of the compensation awarded to the respondents /
claimants by the Tribunal are set out below:
“Loss of Income
(Rs.3,03,756/- X 14) = 42,52,584/-
Loss of spousal consortium = 40,000/-
Loss of Parental consortium = 1,20,000/-
Funeral expenses = 15,000/-
Loss of estate = 15,000/-
Transport expenses 5,000/-
------------------
Rs.44,47,584/-
------------------”
4. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the
impugned award by raising the following grounds:
(a) The notional monthly income fixed by the Tribunal for
the deceased at Rs.27,000/ is on the higher side.
According to the appellant / Insurance Company, without
any supporting oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal had fixed the notional monthly income of the
deceased under the impugned award.
(b) The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards
personal expenses of the deceased as there are only two
__________
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
dependants to the deceased. The appellant / Insurance
Company contends that two of the daughters of the
deceased were married and hence, they cannot be treated
as dependants. It is the case of the appellant / Insurance
Company that erroneously the married daughters were
also treated as dependants by the Tribunal.
5. Before the Tribunal, the following documents were marked
as exhibits on the side of the respondents / claimants:
“Ex.P1 Copy of First Information Report
Ex.P2 Xerox copy of Postmortem certificate of deceased
Ex.P3 Xerox copy of Death certificate of deceased
Ex.P4 Xerox copy of legalheir certificate of the deceased
Ex.P5 Original copy of Passport and visa of deceased
Ex.P6 Xerox copy of salary certificate of deceased
Ex.P7 Xerox copy of 1 to 4 petitioners Aadhar cards
Ex.P8 Xerox copy of Bank pass book of 1 to 4 petitioners
Ex.P9 Xerox copy of Aadhar card of P.W.2”
6. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents
/ claimants, namely, Mumtajbegam, wife of the deceased and
Balamurugan, eyewitness to the accident, as P.W.1 and P.W.2
respectively.
__________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
7. On the side of the appellant / Insurance Company, no
document was filed and no witness was examined.
8. Only based on the salary certificate of the deceased, which
was marked as Ex.P6, the Tribunal had fixed the notional monthly
income of the deceased. Even though the salary certificate of the
deceased discloses that the deceased, who was employed in Malaysia as a
Cook, was earning Rs.50,000/- per month, the Tribunal has only fixed the
notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.27,000/-, which, in our
considered view, cannot be found to be unreasonable and unjustified. No
contra evidence was also produced by the appellant – Insurance Company
to disprove the salary certificate (Ex.P6) produced by the respondents /
claimants. The appellant / Insurance Company have also not examined
any witness on their side.
9. The other contention of the appellant / Insurance Company is
that the Tribunal had erroneously deducted only 1/4th towards personal
expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd, as according to the appellant /
Insurance Company, two married daughters of the deceased were not his
dependants. There is no evidence produced by the appellant / Insurance
Company to prove that the married daughters were not depending on the
__________
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
deceased for their livelihood. No income statement of the husbands of
the respective daughters of the deceased were also produced by the
appellant / Insurance Company to disprove the contention of the
respondents / claimants that the married daughters were also dependants
of the deceased at the time of the accident.
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, excepting for disputing the deduction made by the Tribunal
towards personal expenses of the deceased, the appellant / Insurance
Company has not raised any serious objection with regard to the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads,
namely, loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium, funeral
expenses, loss of estate and transport expenses. We also find from the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal that it is a just compensation due
and payable to the respondents / claimants.
11. During the course of his submissions, learned counsel for
the appellant / Insurance Company relied upon the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Deep Shikha and another vs.
National Insurance Company Limited and others , reported in 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 561 .
__________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
12. In the said decision, on the peculiar facts and circumstances
of that particular case, the Honourable Supreme Court had held that once
a daughter gets married, the logical presumption is that she has no right in
her parental home and that she is financially supported by her husband or
his family, unless the contrary is proved.
13. The said decision has no applicability to the facts of the
instant case as the deceased in the instant case was working as a Cook
and he was not an educated person. In the instant case, the wife of the
deceased, who is the mother of two married daughters, has categorically
deposed before the Tribunal that the married daughters are also
dependants of the deceased. The deceased being only a menial labourer,
i.e., as a Cook, the assertion made by the wife of the deceased as stated
supra with regard to the dependency of the married daughters has to be
believed. Being a beneficial legislation providing compensation to the
dependants of accident victims, necessarily the statement of the wife of
the deceased that the married daughters are dependants have to be
believed as there is no contra evidence produced by the appellant /
Insurance Company before the Tribunal to disprove the same. We,
therefore, do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned
__________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company by relying upon
the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court referred to supra in
support of his contention that the married daughters are not dependants of
the deceased as deposed by the wife of the deceased in her oral evidence
before the Tribunal. The facts in the aforesaid decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant do not apply to the facts of the present case.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this
civil miscellaneous appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
15. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the balance award amount together with interest and costs, due and
payable under the impugned award, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.652 of
2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special District
Court), Madurai District, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of such amount, the
respondents / claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation
amount with accrued interest and costs by filing an appropriate
application before the Tribunal seeking for payment out as per the
proportion set out in the impugned award. On such application having
__________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
been filed, the Tribunal shall permit the respondents / claimants to obtain
payment out. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
(A.Q.,J.) (R.P.L.,J.)
13-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
krk
To:
The Special District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Madurai District.
__________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.
AND
RAJNISH PATHIYIL J.
krk
CMA(MD) No. 710 of 2022
AND
CMP(MD) NO. 6226 OF 2022
13-10-2026
__________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:51 pm )