SANGEETHA vs T. KUPPAN
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA010309022024}
1. Sangeetha
2. Minor Thivakar
S/o.(Late) Thangaraj,
Minor Petitioner represented by his next
friend/mother 1st petitioner Sangeetha, Res. at
Bantharahalli Village, Palacode Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. T. Kuppan
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd
Rep. by its Manager, 10003-E-8,
RIICO Industrial Area, Sita Pura, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
3. Murugammal
4. Gopal
..Respondent(s)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated 07.09.2021, made in
MCOP No.618 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Dharmapuri.
For Appellant(s): Mr.D. Rameshkumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy
(For R2)
RR1, 3 & 4 – Notice – Dispensed with
__________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful claimants have preferred the appeal, seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. The first claimant is the wife and the second claimant is the minor son
of the deceased Thangaraj, who died in a road accident. The wife and minor son
of the deceased has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.618 of 2015. The
parents of the deceased filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.253 of 2016,
seeking compensation for the death of Thangaraj.
3. According to the claimants, on 28.09.2014, the deceased engaged a
Tata Ace pickup van bearing Registration No.TN 29 AU 0936, belonging to the
first respondent, loaded coconut seedlings in the vehicle and was proceeding
from Arasampatti to various parts of Tamil Nadu for selling the coconut
seedlings. When the vehicle was nearing Mohana Priya Broilers Chicken Shop,
east of Rama's Hotel at Thennangudipalayam on the Salem–Chennai National
Highway, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner. Due to the rash and negligent driving, the Tata Ace vehicle capsized on
the left side of the road and caused the accident. The deceased sustained crush
injuries all over his body and died on the spot.
__________
Page 2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
4. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 35 years and
was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by selling coconut seedlings and all kinds of
fruit seedlings throughout Tamil Nadu.
5. The owner of the vehicle/ the first respondent/ T. Kuppan, was called
absent and set ex parte before the Tribunal.
6. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter statement,
wherein it denied the manner of the accident. It was also stated that the
deceased travelled as an unauthorised passenger in the goods vehicle. It is in
violation of the policy conditions. The first respondent's vehicle was a goods
carriage vehicle and only two persons were permitted to travel inside the cabin
of the vehicle. However, five persons, including the driver, travelled in the said
vehicle at the time of the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle was also
not holding a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of the
accident.
7. Before the Tribunal, a joint trial was conducted and evidence was
recorded in M.C.O.P.No.618 of 2015. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the
claimants, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Murugan was
examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents,
R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked.
__________
Page 3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
8. On appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
passed a common award and concluded that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle.
9. The Tribunal also found that, on the date of the accident, the offending
vehicle did not have a valid fitness certificate, which amounted to a violation of
the insurance policy conditions. Accordingly, it held that the first respondent
therein / the owner of the vehicle, was liable for the breach of policy condition.
However, since the deceased was a third party and the insurance policy was in
force on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company was directed to pay
the award amount at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle, namely, the first respondent, T. Kuppan, in
M.C.O.P.No.618 of 2015.
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed
Rs.5,000/- as the notional monthly income of the deceased and fixed his age as
37 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal also added 40% towards
future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses,
considering the number of dependants and applied multiplier 15. Accordingly, it
awarded Rs.9,45,000/- under the head of loss of dependency (Rs.63,000/- × 15).
The Tribunal also awarded compensation under various other heads.
__________
Page 4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
11. The Tribunal also awarded compensation to the parents of the
deceased, who were the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.253 of 2016, awarding
Rs.1,00,000/- to each of them. The Tribunal also directed the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation amount at the first instance and thereafter
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
12. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount granted by the
Tribunal (Rs.)
1 Compensation for Pecuniary loss Rs.9,45,000/-
2 Loss of spousal consortium for 1st
Rs.40,000/-
petitioner
3 Loss of parental consortium for second
Rs.40,000/-
petitioner
4 Loss of filial compensation for
Rs.80,000/-
respondents 3 and 4
5 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
6 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
7 Total Rs.11,35,000/-
13. Aggrieved over the same, the claimants have preferred the appeal,
seeking enhancement of compensation.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would
submit that the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.5,000/- per
month while arriving at just compensation, which is very meagre, as the
__________
Page 5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
deceased was engaged in the business of selling coconut seedlings throughout
Tamil Nadu and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. There were four
dependents for the deceased. The learned counsel would further submit that the
Tribunal ought to have fixed a higher notional monthly income of Rs.18,000/-
to arrive at just compensation. The Tribunal also erred in not awarding
compensation towards loss of love and affection and failed to award any
compensation under the head of transportation expenses.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance
Company would submit that, in the absence of proof of monthly income, the
Tribunal rightly fixed Rs.5,000/- as the notional monthly income. Considering
the fact that the accident took place in the year 2014 and the cost of living at
that time, the Tribunal fixed Rs.5,000/- per month as the notional income of the
deceased does not require any interference. The compensation awarded under
the other heads is reasonable and proper and does not require any interference.
16. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the records carefully.
17. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident and the
negligence fixed on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of
the vehicle was called absent and set ex parte before the Tribunal.
__________
Page 6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
18. P.W.2, the eyewitness to the accident, deposed that he had travelled in
the offending vehicle along with the deceased and two other friends, excluding
the driver. He deposed that the vehicle capsized on the left side of the road due
to the driver's act, causing the accident. He also deposed that he had travelled in
the vehicle along with the deceased and that they were travelling as owners of
the goods, carrying coconut seedlings for sale in different parts of the State.
19. It is seen from Ex.P8, the copy of the Form of Accident Inspection
Report, that the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle had expired on
09.08.2014, whereas the date of the accident was 28.09.2014. Admittedly, on
the date of the accident, the offending vehicle had valid permit and insurance
coverage. It is relevant to note that, on the date of the accident, the offending
vehicle did not have a valid fitness certificate, amounting to a statutory violation
of the insurance policy conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the
first respondent therein /the owner of the vehicle, was liable for the breach. The
Tribunal also found that, since the deceased was a third party and the insurance
policy was in force on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company was
liable to pay the compensation at the first instance and thereafter recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle. This Court does not find any infirmity in
the said finding.
__________
Page 7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
20. With regard to the quantum of compensation, in the absence of proof
of monthly income, the Tribunal fixed Rs.5,000/- as the notional monthly
income of the deceased. It is relevant to note that the accident took place on
28.09.2014. Considering the cost of living at that time, the notional monthly
income fixed by the Tribunal appears to be meagre. Hence, this Court is
inclined to fix Rs.12,000/- as the notional monthly income of the deceased.
21. As per Ex.P5, the Transfer Certificate standing in the name of the
deceased shows his date of birth as 17.03.1977. Accordingly, the age of the
deceased is taken as 37 years at the time of the accident. By applying the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others , reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC
609 (SC) , 40% towards future prospects has to be added. Considering the
number of dependants, 1/4th has to be deducted towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased and multiplier 15 has to be applied.
22. In the light of the above discussion, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the head of pecuniary loss is enhanced as follows:
Calculation of Loss of Dependency
Monthly income : Rs.12,000/-
Added: 40% future prospects
(Rs.12,000 x 40%) : Rs.4,800/-
__________
Page 8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
Total monthly income : Rs.16,800/-
Annual income (Rs.16,800 × 12) : Rs.2,01,600/-
Less: 1/4th towards personal
and living expenses : Rs.50,400/-
Annual contribution to the family
(Rs.2,01,600/- - Rs.50,400/-) : Rs.1,51,200/-
Multiplier : 15
Loss of dependency
(Rs.1,51,200 × 15) : Rs.22,68,000/-
23. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of transportation expenses. Hence, this Court is
inclined to award Rs.5,000/- under the head of transportation charges.
24. The compensation awarded under the other heads by the Tribunal
appears to be reasonable and proper and does not require interference. In view
of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.618 of
2015 is modified as follows:
Sl.
No
Heads of
compensation
Amount granted
Amount granted
by this Court (Rs.)
Granted/
Enhanced/
Confirmed/
by the Tribunal
.
(Rs.)
Reduced
1 Compensation
Rs.9,45,000/- Rs.22,68,000/- Enhanced
(Rs.13,28,000/-)
for Pecuniary
loss
2 Loss of spousal
Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- Confirmed
consortium for
__________
Page 9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
1st petitioner
3 Loss of parental
Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- Confirmed
consortium for
second
petitioner
4 Loss of filial
compensation
for respondents
Rs.80,000/- Rs.80,000/- Confirmed
3 and 4
5 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Confirmed
6 Funeral
Expenses
Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Confirmed
7 Transportation
Nil Rs.5,000/- Granted
Charges
7 Total Rs.11,35,000/- Rs.24,63,000/- Enhanced
25 . Apportionment
Claimants in
(i) MCOP.No.253 of 2016 (parents) : Rs.1,00,000/- each; Total Rs.2,00,000/-
(ii) Remaining compensation for the claimants in MCOP.No.618 of 2015:
Rs.24,63,000/- - Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.22,63,000/-)
26. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.618 of 2015 is enhanced from
Rs.11,35,000/- to Rs.24,63,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs and Sixty Three
Thousand only). The claimants in MCOP.No.253 of 2016, namely the third and
fourth respondents herein are each entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards their share,
as awarded by the Tribunal and the same remains unaltered. The remaining
compensation amount i.e., a sum of Rs.22,63,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs
and Sixty Three Thousand only) shall be apportioned between the first and
__________
Page 10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
second claimants in MCOP.No.618 of 2015, in accordance with the
apportionment directed by the Tribunal.
27. The respondent / Insurance company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount, together with interests and costs, after
deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of
MCOP.Nos.618 of 2015 and 253 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Dharmapuri. On such deposit, the
claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares together with
interests and costs, after deducting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by
making appropriate applications before the Tribunal.
28. The pay and recover order of the Tribunal, directing the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation at the first instance and thereafter recover the
same from the first respondent / owner of the vehicle is confirmed. The other
directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment and
disbursement of compensation remains unaltered.
__________
Page 11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
29. The claimants are not entitled to interest for the period of delay, if
any, as ordered by this Court in the connected miscellaneous petitions. No costs.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kak
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Dharmapuri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
kak
CMA No. 3270 of 2024
26-10-2026
__________
Page 13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:19 pm )