SANTHI vs PARVATHY

Court
Madras High Court

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 2544 of 2024
1.Santhi
2.Vennila
3.Selvi
4.Dhanalakshmi
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1.Parvathy
2.The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office, No.19/2A,
Junction Main Road, Salem 636 004.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to enhance the amount awarded in M.C.O.P No. 358 of
2018 dated 03.03.2023 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court, Hosur.
For Appellant(s): Mr.S.P.Yuaraj
For Respondent(s): Ms.R.Sreevidhya for R2
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful claimants have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging 50% negligence
on the part of the deceased.
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
2. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, for the death of one Settu, who died in a road accident that took
place on 28.06.2025. The first claimant is the sister; the second claimant is the
wife of the deceased's brother and claimants 3 & 4 are daughters of the
deceased's brother.
3. According to the claimants, on 28.06.2015 at about 20.00 hours, the
deceased was walking opposite to the Hudco Police Station in Krishnagiri –
Hosur NH road, at that time, a private bus bearing Registration No TN 38 BF
9949 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent,
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and without sounding horn
and without following the rules of the road, came from backside and dashed on
the deceased and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the deceased
sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
4. The first respondent remained absent and was set ex parte before the
Tribunal.
5. The second respondent/Insurance Company has filed counter statement
wherein the second respondent denied the manner of accident. On 28.06.2015,
the driver of the bus was proceeding from Krishnagiri to Hosur NH road drove
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
the vehicle very slowly, cautiously, observing the traffic rules, keeping the
vehicle left side of the road, with sounding horn and while the said vehicle was
proceeding opposite to Hudco Police Station, the deceased suddenly crossed the
road from left to right side without seeing the vehicles coming on the road and
therefore, the deceased invited the accident. The driver of the bus has not
anticipated that the deceased would have started crossing the road. However,
the driver of the bus has applied sudden brake to avoid the accident. Inspite of
that the accident was occurred.
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was
examined herself as PW1, one Rajendran, an eyewitness was examined as PW2
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, RW1
was examined and Ex.R1 was marked.
7. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
came to a conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to rash and
negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal also found that
the deceased was also crossing the road in a negligent manner and hence, fixed
50% negligence on the part of the deceased and 50% negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending vehicle.
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
8. With regard to quantum of compensation, in the absence of proof of
monthly income, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- as notional income of
the deceased, added 25% towards future prospects of the deceased, deducted 1/2
income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased,
applied multiplier '13' and awarded a sum of Rs.5,85,000/- as compensation
under the head Loss of Dependency. The Tribunal also awarded compensation
under various heads hereunder :
S.No Heads Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
1. Loss of dependency 5,85,000/-
2. Transportation 5,000/-
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total
Less : 50% Contributory negligence
Rs.6,20,000/-
(-) Rs.3,10,000/-
Rs.3,10,000/-
9. Aggrieved over the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging 50% negligence on the
part of the deceased.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants / claimants would submit that
PW2, who is an eyewitness to the accident, deposed about the manner of
accident and PW2 also deposed that the accident occurred only due to rash and
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
negligent act of the driver of the bus. Without considering the evidence of WP2,
the Tribunal erroneously fixed 50% negligence on the part of the deceased
without any proper evidence. The evidence of RW1, who is an interested
witness, is not sufficient to fixing 50% negligence on the part of the deceased.
Further would submit that the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation
towards monthly income and nowadays coolie is getting Rs.20,000/- minimum
per month, but the Tribunal has taken monthly salary as Rs.6,000/- per month is
not proper.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance
Company would submit that considering the evidence of RW1 and PW2, who is
an eyewitness to the accident, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the deceased
also contributed to the negligence and fixation of 50% negligence on the part of
the deceased does not require any interference. In the absence of proof of
monthly income, the Tribunal has rightly fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- as notional
monthly income of the deceased and accordingly, awarded compensation which
is proper and reasonable and does not require any interference.
12. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the
second respondent and perusal the materials available on record.
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
13. According to the claimants, on 28.06.2015 at about 20.00 hours, the
deceased was walking opposite to the Hudco Police Station in Krishnagiri –
Hosur NH road, at that time, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the bus in
a rash and negligent manner which came from backside and dashed on the
deceased and caused the accident. In order to prove the above said facts, the
claimants have relied upon the evidence of PW2, who is an eyewitness to the
accident. PW2 deposed about the manner of accident as narrated by the
claimants in the claim petition. PW2 in his cross examination admits that the
accident took place in the middle of the road, and that the accident took place
due to crossing the road in night time in a negligent manner, and there is no
provision for crossing the road at that spot. According to the second
respondent/Insurance Company, the accident was occurred due to the negligent
act of the deceased. The deceased was suddenly cross the road carelessly and
negligently and he himself dashed to the offending vehicle. In order to prove to
the above said facts, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1. He has
deposed that on 28.06.2015, when he was proceeding from Krishnagiri to Hosur
at 20.00 hours, near SIPCOT, the accident occurred on the middle of the road,
and no proceedings have been taken against the deceased on the criminal side.
He also deposed that the case has been registered against him as accused and he
was arrested and released on bail. Considering the evidence of PW2 and RW1,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased suddenly crossed the
road negligently and it is also relevant to note that the accident was occurred in
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
the night hours and this Court is of the considered opinion that fixation of 50%
negligence on the part of the deceased is not proper and reasonable. Hence, this
Court is inclined to fix 25% negligence on the part of the deceased.

13.1. As per Ex.P11/death certificate, the age of the deceased was
mentioned as 40 years. It is relevant to note that in the claim petition the age of
the deceased was mentioned as 40 years. However, PW1 in her cross
examination mentioned the age of the deceased as 46 years at the time of
accident. Considering the age mentioned in the postmortem certificate and the
age mentioned in the claim petition, this Court is inclined to consider the age of
the deceased as 40 years instead of 46 years fixed by the Tribunal. According to
the claimants, the deceased was a daily wager and was earning a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month. In the absence of proof of monthly income, the Tribunal
fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- as notional monthly income of the deceased.
Considering the fact that the accident took place on 28.06.2015 and therefore, at
the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years, this Court is
inclined to fix a sum of Rs.13,000/- as notional monthly income of the deceased
would meet the ends of justice. By applying ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in 2017(2) TNMAC 758 considering the age of the deceased,
this Court is inclined to add 25% towards future prospects of the deceased.
Since the deceased died as a bachelor, 50% deducted towards personal and
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
living expenses of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased by
applying the multiplier ‘15’, the compensation under the head loss of
dependency would be,
Calculation :
Notional income : Rs.13,000/-
Future prospects : 25%
(Rs.13,000/- + 25% = 16,250/-)
Multiplier : 15
Rs.16,250/- x 12 x 15 x 1/2 = Rs.14,62,500/-
The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head loss of love and
affection and this Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
love and affection to the first claimant alone. The claimants 2 to 4 are not
entitled any compensation under the head loss of love and affection.
14. The following tabular column would show the enhanced amount
awarded by this Court under various heads.
S.No Heads Amount awarded by the
Tribunal
1. Loss of dependency 14,62,500/-
2. Loss of love and affection
(first claimant)
40,000/-
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total
Less : 25% Contributory
negligence
Rs.15,32,500/-
(-) Rs.3,83,125/-
Rs.11,49,375/-
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
15. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.11,49,375/-. 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 appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.11,49,375/-.
iii. The second respondent, the United India Insurance Company
Limited, Salem, is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
Rs.11,49,375/- (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 M.C.O.P No. 358 of 2018 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District
Court, Hosur, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order/uploading of this order. As per order of this
Court in CMP No.15135 of 2024 dated 02.09.2024 the claimants are
not entitled for any interest on the enhanced compensation for the
delay period, if any.
iv. 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.
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
v. The manner and mode of disbursement of compensation shall be as
per the order of the Tribunal.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MTL
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Additional District Court, Hosur.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA No. 2544 of 2024
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
MTL
CMA No. 2544 of 2024
29-10-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )