The Manager vs Meena

Court
Madras High Court

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 2842 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 21876 OF 2026
The Manager
The Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Shaw Wallace Building, 2nd Floor,
No.319, Old No.154,
Thambu Chetty Street,
Parrys Corner
Chennai 600001
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Meena
W/o Late Mohan
Res at Plot No.2813,
3rd Main Road, Manali MMDA, Mathur,
Chennai 600068
2. Radhika
W/o Saravanan
Res at Plot No.2813,
3rd Main Road, Manali MMDA, Mathur,
Chennai 600068.
3. Ezhilarasi
W/o Venkataraman
Res at Plot No.2813,
3rd Main Road, Manali MMDA, Mathur,
Chennai 600068.
4. Manikandan
S/o Late Mohan
Res at Plot No.2813,
3rd Main Road, Manali MMDA, Mathur,
Chennai 600068.
__________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
5. R.Arun
S/o Ramalingam
No.134, Main Road,
Perambur Kunnam
Sirkazhi Taluk, Nagapattinam 609 108
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgement and Decree dated 19-02-2025 made
in MCOP No.4603 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant(s): Mrs.R.Sree Vidhya
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja,
for R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal challenging
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide award dated
19.02.2025 made in MCOP.No.4603 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
st
2. The 1 claimant is the wife of the deceased Mohan, the claimants 2 to 3
th
are daughters and the 4 claimant is the son of the deceased. According to the
claimants, on 08.04.2022 at about 6.30 hours, while the deceased Mohan was
riding a bicycle, proceeding from West to East on the left side of Medavakkam
to Sholinganallur Road, near Bajaj Auto Showroom, Medavakkam, Chennai, at
__________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 82 V 7839, driven by its driver in a
very rash and negligent manner and hit the back side of the bicycle. Due to the
accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and consequently, died on the
same day. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, filed the
aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with
interest and costs.
nd
3. The 2 respondent therein / appellant Insurance Company has filed a
counter statement denying the manner of accident, place, date and time of
accident. They also denied the alleged relationship of the claimants to the
deceased and the claimants are put to strict proof that they are the legal heirs
and dependents of the deceased and further that they are solely entitled to claim
compensation. The Insurance Company also denied that the motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.TN 82 V 7839 was insured with them and further denied that the driver
was holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and
hence, they cannot be held liable to pay compensation.
th
4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the 4 claimant
examined himself as PW1 and also one Kishore – an eye witness as PW2 and
Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. Neither any witness was examined nor any
document was marked on the side of the respondent Insurance Company.
__________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
5. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence adduced on either side,
found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
rider of the motorcycle insured with the appellant and the appellant, being the
insurer of the vehicle, is liable to pay compensation. With regard to dependency
of the deceased, the Tribunal has relied upon the Legal Heirship Certificate
issued by the Tahsildar in Ex.P5. As per Ex.P2-Postmortem Certificate, the
deceased was aged about 71 years and by applying the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Andal v. Avinav Kannan [2019 (1)
TNMAC 54(DB)], f ixed the monthly notional income of the deceased as
Rs.16,000 /- per month and by adding 10% towards future prospects by relying
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd.
th
V. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (2) TNMAC 609] and also adopted 1/4
Multiplier as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and
Ors. V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. [2009 (2) TNMAC 1], has
awarded compensation under various heads as under:
Heads of Compensation Amount awarded by
the Tribunal (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency
[16,000 + 10%] = 17,200 x 12 = 2,11,200/- less
th
1/4 = 1,58,400 x 5 = 7,92.000
7,92,000
Loss of Consortium [44000 x 4] 1,76,000
Loss of Estate 16,500
Funeral Expenses 16,500
TOTAL 10,01,000
Being aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded, the Insurance
Company has preferred the present Appeal.
__________
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company
would submit that the Tribunal has erred in awarding 10% towards future
prospects, despite the fact that the deceased was aged about 71 years at the time
of accident. The Tribunal erred in applying the Multiplier “5” for computing the
Loss of Income without appreciating the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (supra) and as per the said judgment, when
the deceased was aged above 70 years, the proper multiplier to be adopted is
“3”. The Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.16,000/- per month in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the
avocation or income of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the claimants 2 to 4 are married daughters and son of the
deceased and they would not be construed as the dependent of the deceased.
rd
Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses
th
instead of 1/4 . To strengthen his contention, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deep
Shikha and another v. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Others [2025
SCC Online SC 1090], United India Insurance Company Ltd. V. Mary
Victoria and Others [2020 SCC Online Mad 16456] , to show that when the
deceased crossed 70 years, correct Multiplier is only “3” and not “5” and also
rd
1/3 to be deducted towards personal expenses.
__________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
7. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents / claimants
would fairly concede that the Tribunal adding 10% towards Future Prospects
would not arise in this case and the same should not be awarded. It is further
submitted that the legal representatives of the deceased i.e, married daughters
and son are entitled to maintain the claim petition. The learned counsel for the
respondents / claimants, to strengthen his contention, has relied upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited
v. Birender and Others [CDJ 2020 SC 028] and N.Jayasree and Ors. V.
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [LL 2021 SC 588] to
show that the percentage of deduction for personal expenses cannot be governed
by a rigid rule or formula of universal application and it also does not depend
upon the basis of relationship of the claimant with the deceased.
8. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the entire materials available on record.
9. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and fixing of
negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. It is to be noted that the
Tribunal awarded an addition of 10% towards future prospects despite the fact
that the deceased was 71 years at the time of accident by applying the ratio laid
down in Pranay Sethi case , future prospects are not applicable to individuals
aged above 60 years of age. Therefore, adding 10% towards future prospects by
the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
__________
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
10. Next grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance
Company is that the correct Multiplier is “3” when the deceased person is aged
70 years. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case wherein it has been held as follows:
“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying
Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335], Trilok
Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720:
2005 SCC (Cri) 1657]), which starts with an operative multiplier of
18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by
one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16
for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years,
and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five
years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7
for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
By applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision wherein the age of the
deceased is above 65 years, the correct Multiplier is “5”. In such circumstances,
__________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
applying the Multiplier “5” by the Tribunal appears to be correct and there is no
reason warrants to interfere in the award of the Tribunal with regard to applying
the Multiplier “5” for calculating the Loss of Income.
11. Another contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
rd
Insurance Company is that the Tribunal ought to have deduced 1/3 towards
th
personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4 . In this regard, it is relevant
to refer the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. V.
Mary Victoria and Others [2020 SCC Online Mad 16456] , wherein it was held
that when the deceased is 71 years aged old male member, will have his own
expenses peculiarly related to his age. Therefore, his final need will certainly
rd rd
be between 1/3 and 50%. Therefore, 1/3 has to be deducted towards his
personal expenses from the notional income inclusive of future prospect. By
applying the ratio laid down in the above judgment, the Tribunal ought to have
rd th
deducted 1/3 instead of 1/4 towards personal expenses.
12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads viz., Loss of
Consortium, Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate appears to be reasonable and
proper and does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under:
__________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
Heads of Compensation Amount
awarded by the
Tribunal (Rs.)
Amount
awarded by this
Court (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency
[16,000 + 10%] = 17,200 x 12 =
th
2,11,200/- less 1/4 = 1,58,400 x 5 =
7,92.000
7,92,000 6,40,000
[Rs.16,000 x 12 =
rd
1,92,000-1/3 =
1,28,000 x 5 ]
Loss of Consortium [44000 x 4] 1,76,000 1,76,000
Loss of Estate 16,500 16,500
Funeral Expenses 16,500 16,500
TOTAL 10,01,000 8,49,000
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed
and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide award dated 19.02.2025
made in MCOP.No.4603 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai is modified to the effect that the
claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,49,000/- with interest @ 7.5.
p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit along with costs. The
appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified compensation
amount, less already deposited, if any, before the Tribunal within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the
claimants are entitled to withdraw the same, as per the apportionment already
ordered by the Tribunal, less amount already withdrawn, by filing appropriate
application before the Tribunal. The manner and mode of disbursement of
compensation shall be as per the order of the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
__________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
31-08-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Jvm
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
VI Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
__________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )

CMA No. 2842 of 2026
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
Jvm
CMA No. 2842 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 21876 OF 2026
31-08-2026
__________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:53:03 pm )