SUYAN ABITHA @ ABITHA vs C.T.SHANMUGAM
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011773992024}
AND
CMA NO. 3328 OF 2024,CMA NO. 3327 OF 2024
Suyan Abitha @ Abitha
No. 40, Rajeev Nagar, Palayakottai Road,
Kangayam, Tiruppur District J.Bakkiamery (Died)
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. C.T.Shanmugam
S/o. C.T.S. Chidambaram, No. 5, Balaji Nagar,
12th Street, Athambakkam, Chennai 88.
2. United India Insurance Co Ltd.
No. 44, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai 32
3. United India Insurance Co Ltd.
No. 2/178, Kumaran Complex, Erode Road,
Perundurai, Erode Dist.
..Respondent(s)
CMA No. 3328 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011774002024}
Suyan Abitha @ Abitha
No. 40, Rajeev Nagar, Palayakottai Road,
Kangayam, Tiruppur District J.Bakkiamery (Died)
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. C.T.Shanmugam
S/o. C.T.S. Chidambaram, No. 5, Balaji Nagar,
12th Street, Athambakkam, Chennai 88
2. United India Insurance Co Ltd.
No. 44, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai 32
__________
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
3. United India Insurance Co Ltd.
No. 2/178, Kumaran Complex, Erode Road,
Perundurai, Erode Dist.
..Respondent(s)
CMA No. 3327 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011774012024}
Suyan Abitha @ Abitha
No. 40, Rajeev Nagar, Palayakottai Road,
Kangayam, Tiruppur District J.Bakkiamery (Died)
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. C.T.Shanmugam
S/o. C.T.S. Chidambaram, No. 5, Balaji Nagar,
12th Street, Athambakkam, Chennai 88.
2. United India Insurance Co Ltd.
No. 44, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai 32
3. United India Insurance Co Ltd.
No. 2/178, Kumaran Complex, Erode Road,
Perundurai, Erode Dist.
..Respondent(s)
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking to set aside the Award dated 12.07.2024 made in
MCOP No.1307 of 2013 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Tirupur.
CMA No. 3328 of 2024
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking to set aside the Award dated 12.07.2024 made in
MCOP No. 1309 of 2013 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Tirupur.
__________
Page 2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
CMA No. 3327 of 2024
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking to set aside the Award dated 12.07.2024 made in
MCOP No. 1310 of 2013 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Tirupur.
For Appellant(s): D.Rameshkumar
in all the appeals
For Respondent(s): P.Sankaranarayanan
for R 2 & R3 in all appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful claimants have preferred these appeals, challenging 50%
negligence fixed on the part of the deceased and also seeking enhancement of
compensation. CMA.No.3326 of 2024 has been filed aggrieved over the award
dated 12.07.2024 made in MCOP.No.1307 of 2013. CMA.No.3327 of 2024 has
been filed aggrieved over the award dated 12.07.2024 made in MCOP.No.1310
of 2013. CMA.No.3328 of 2024 has been filed aggrieved over the award dated
12.07.2024 made in MCOP.No.1309 of 2013.
2. All the claim petitions have been filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of one Kennedy,
Jayarani and their 6 months minor child Anishkumar, who were all died in a
st
road accident. The 1 claimant Suyan Abitha @ Abitha is the daughter of the
deceased Kennedy and Jayarani and sister of the deceased Anishkumar, while
nd
the 2 claimant Backiamery is the mother of the deceased Kennedy.
__________
Page 3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
3. According to the claimants, on 25.05.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., when
Kennedy was driving the car bearing Reg.No.TN 07 U 4527 from West to East,
near Kallimettupalayam pirivu, on the Coimbatore to Trichy Road, the bus
bearing Reg.No.TN 22 BH 2188, driven in a rash and negligent manner from
the opposite direction, hit the car resulting in the death of Kennedy, his wife
st
Jayarani and their 6 months old son Anishkumar. The 1 respondent is the
nd rd
owner of the bus, the 2 respondent is the insurer of the bus ad the 3
respondent is the insurer of the car. According to the claimants, the deceased
Kennedy was aged about 36 years at the time of accident, earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month as a welding mechanic and the deceased Jayarani was
aged about 35 years, earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month working as a
Tailor.
st
4. The 1 respondent / owner of the offending bus was called absent and
set exparte before the Tribunal.
nd
5. The 2 respondent / Insurance Company has filed a counter statement,
wherein they denied the manner of accident and further stated that only the
deceased Kennedy had driven the car in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
bus. The driver of the bus did not have effective driving licence.
__________
Page 4 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
6. A joint trial was conducted. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the
st
claimants, the 1 claimant herself was examined as PW1 and one Justin
Vellankanni was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the
side of the respondent, no witness was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were
marked. On behalf of the witness, Ex.X1 was marked.
7. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence adduced on either side,
finds that during the course of cross examination of PW2, who has admitted that
the accident occurred in the spot indicated in the Rough Sketch prepared by the
police and further admitted that the Observation Mahazar prepared by the police
describes the scene of occurrence properly. The Tribunal, on a perusal of
Ex.R1-Rough Sketch and Ex.R2 – Observation Mahazar finds that the accident
occurred on the centre of the east-west road and if the car had been driven from
west to east, on the left extreme of the road, the accident would not have been
occurred. This would clearly indicate that both the driver of the bus as well as
the driver of the car had driven their respective vehicles at a very high speed in
the centre of the road and had collied head on. Hence, the Tribunal fixed 50%
negligence on the driver of the bus and 50% on the deceased Kennedy.
nd
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the 2 respondent / Insurer of the bus shall
be liable to pay 50% compensation to the claimants in all the three cases.
__________
Page 5 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
8. With regard to quantum of compensation in MCOP.No.1307 of 2013
pertaining to the deceased Kennedy, the deceased was working as a Welding
Mechanic earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, however in the absence of
proof of income, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.8,500/- as the notional monthly
income of the deceased, added 40% towards future prospects as the deceased
was aged about 38 years at the time of accident by relying upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and
th
Others [2017 (2) TNMAC 609], deducted 1/4 towards personal living
expenses considering the number of dependents and also adopted Multiplier
“15” 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], and has arrived at
the compensation towards Loss of Dependency amounting to Rs.16,06,500/-.
The Tribunal has also awarded compensation under various other heads as
under:
Heads of Compensation Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of Dependency
[8500 + 40%] = 11,900x 12 x 15 x ¾ 16,06,500
Funeral Expenses 15,000
Loss of Estate 15,000
Loss of Consortium
st
Parental consortium to 1 claimant and
nd
Filial consortium to 2 claimant
(40,000 x2)
80,000
TOTAL 17,16,500
__________
Page 6 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
Challenging 50% contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased
Kennedy and seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant has preferred
CMA.No.3326 of 2024.
9. With regard to the quantum of compensation in MCOP.No.1310 of
2013 pertaining to the deceased Jayarani, at the time of accident she was aged
about 35 years working as a Tailor and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-, however
in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.7,000 per month as
the monthly notional income of the deceased, added 40% towards future
th
prospects, deducted 1/4 towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier
“15” and arrived at a compensation of Rs.13,23,000/- towards Loss of
Dependency. The Tribunal has also awarded under various other heads as
hereunder:
Heads of Compensation Amount awarded by
the Tribunal (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency
[7000 + 40%] = 9,800x 12 x 15 x ¾
13,23,000
Funeral Expenses 15,000
Loss of Estate 15,000
Loss of Consortium
st
Parental consortium to 1 claimant
40,000
TOTAL 13,93,000
Challenging the 50% contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased
and seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant has preferred
CMA.No.3327 of 2024.
__________
Page 7 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded in
MCOP.No.1309 of 2013 pertaining to the deceased Anishkumar, who is 6
months old, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as under:
Heads of Compensation Amount awarded by
the Tribunal (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 2,40,000
Funeral Expenses 15,000
Loss of Estate 15,000
Loss of Consortium
st
Parental consortium to 1 claimant
Nil
TOTAL 2,70,000
Challenging the 50% contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased
and seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant has preferred
CMA.No.3328 of 2024.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / claimant would
submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2, who is an eye
witness to the occurrence properly. PW2 deposed about the manner of accident
and categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the bus, which dashed the car driven by the deceased.
The Tribunal ought not to have fixed contributory negligence at 50% on the
deceased. The Tribunal failed to consider that there was no documentary and
oral evidence adduced on the respondent side to prove contributory negligence
and in the absence of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought not
have awarded contributory negligence of 50%, which is erroneous and liable to
__________
Page 8 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
be set aside. The Tribunal has erred in fixing notional income of Rs.8,500/- for
the deceased Kennedy, who was doing self employment of welding machine
mechanic and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Similarly, the Tribunal erred in
fixing the notional income of Rs.7,000/- for the deceased Jayarani, who was a
Tailor earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and the same is to be enhanced.
nd
12. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the 2 respondent /
Insurance Company would submit that upon appreciation of evidence adduced
by PW2, who is an eye witness and considering Ex.R1- Rough Sketch and
Ex.R2- Observation Mahazar, which would show that the accident had occurred
on the centre of the east-west road. If the car had been driven from west to east,
on the left extreme of the road, the accident would not have been occurred.
This would clearly indicate that both the driver of the bus as well as Kennedy,
driver of the car had driven the respective vehicles at a very high speed in the
centre of the road and had collied head on. Hence, the Tribunal fixed 50%
negligence on the driver of the bus and 50% negligence on the deceased
Kennedy and in the absence of proof of income, the notional monthly income
arrived by the Tribunal at Rs.8500/- for the deceased Kennedy and Rs.7,000 for
the deceased Jayarani appears to be just and proper and does not require any
interference.
__________
Page 9 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
13. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the entire materials available on record.
14. According to the claimants, on 25.05.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., when
the deceased Kennedy was driving the car bearing Reg.No.TN 07 U 4527 from
West to East near Kallimettupalayam pirivu, on the Coimbatore to Trichy Road,
at that time, a bus bearing Reg.No.TN 22 BH 2188 driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner from the opposite direction and hit the car, resulting in the
death of the driver of the car / deceased Kennedy, his wife Jayarani and their 6
months old son Anishkumar. In order to prove the said facts, the claimants
have relied upon the evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness to the occurrence
and in his proof affidavit, PW2 has stated that the accident had occurred when
the bus driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car which was going from
West to East, on the left extreme of the road. PW2 has admitted that the
accident occurred in the spot indicated in the Rough Sketch prepared by the
police and further admitted that the Observation Mahazar prepared by the police
describes the scene of occurrence properly.
nd
15. According to the 2 respondent / Insurance Company, due to the rash
and negligent driving of the deceased Kennedy, the accident had occurred. In
order to prove the said fact, neither the driver of the bus nor any independent
witness has been examined. It is relevant to note that the burden of proof of a
__________
Page 10 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
particular fact lies on that person, who wishes the Court to believe in its
existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on
rd
any particular person. In the case on hand, though the 3 respondent Insurance
Company contended that the deceased Kenney also contributed to the accident
and the deceased Kennedy had driven his car rash and negligently, in order to
prove the said facts, neither the driver of the bus nor any independent witness
has been examined. In such circumstances, the Tribunal merely relied upon
Ex.R1 – Rough Sketch and Ex.R2- Observation Mahazar to conclude that the
accident had taken place in the centre of the east-west road. If the car had been
driven from west to east, on the left extreme of the road, the accident would not
have been occurred. In the absence of any oral and documentary evidence on
the part of the driver of the bus, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed 50%
contributory negligence on the driver of the car, namely the deceased Kennedy.
Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal fixing 50% contributory negligence on
the deceased Kennedy is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.
16. With regard to the quantum of compensation in MCOP.No.1307/2013
pertaining to the deceased Kennedy, the deceased was doing welding mechanic
works and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m., considering the fact that the
accident took place on 25.05.2013 and the deceased was aged 36 years at the
time of accident, as evidenced from Ex.P5-Postmortem Certificate, the Tribunal
fixing a sum of Rs.8,500/- per month as notional monthly income of the
__________
Page 11 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
deceased, appears to be meagre and this Court is inclined to enhance the same
to Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, by adding 40% towards future prospects,
rd
applying the Multiplier “15” and deducting 1/3 towards Personal Living
Expenses, the compensation under Loss of Dependency would comes to
nd
Rs.16,80,000/-. Since the mother of the deceased / 2 claimant died during the
st
pendency of the claim petition, Loss of Consortium is granted only to the 1
claimant as parental consortium. This Court is also inclined to award
Rs.10,000/- towards Transport charges. Thus, the compensation now
determined by this Court is tabulated hereunder:
Heads of Compensation Amount awarded by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of Dependency
[10,000 + 40%] = 14,000x 12 x 15 x
2/3
16,80,000
Funeral Expenses 15,000
Loss of Estate 15,000
Loss of Consortium 40,000
Transportation Expenses 10,000
TOTAL 17,60,000
17. With regard to the quantum of compensation in MCOP.No.1310/2013
pertaining to the deceased Jayarani, the deceased was doing Tailoring job and
earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m., considering the fact that the accident took
place on 25.05.2013 and the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident,
as evidenced from Ex.P6-Postmortem Certificate, the Tribunal fixing a sum of
Rs.8,500/- per month as notional monthly income of the deceased, appears to be
__________
Page 12 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
meagre and this Court is inclined to enhance the same to Rs.10,000/- per month.
Hence, by adding 40% towards future prospects, applying the multiplier 15 and
rd
deducting 1/3 towards Personal Living Expenses, the compensation under Loss
of Dependency would comes to Rs.16,80,000/-. Since the mother -in-law of the
nd
deceased / 2 claimant died during the pendency of the claim petition, Loss of
st
Corsortium is granted only to the 1 claimant as filial consortium. This Court is
also inclined to award Rs.10,000/- towards Transport charges. Thus, the
compensation now determined by this Court is tabulated hereunder:
Heads of Compensation Amount awarded by
the Tribunal (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency
[10,000 + 40%] = 14,000x 12 x 15 x 2/3 16,80,000
Funeral Expenses 15,000
Loss of Estate 15,000
Loss of Consortium 40,000
Transportation Expenses 10,000
TOTAL 17,60,000
18. With regard to the quantum of compensation in MCOP.No.1309 /
2013, pertaining to the deceased 6 months old Anishkumar, who do not have
any independent income and the claimants are sister and grandmother of the
deceased, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,40,000/- towards Loss of Dependency
in terms of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in case of death,
which appears to be reasonable and proper and does not require any
interference.
__________
Page 13 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
19. In the light of the above, CMA.Nos.3326 and 3327 of 2024 is partly
allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide award dated
nd
12.07.2026 in MCOP.Nos.1307 and 1310 of 2013 is modified as above. The 2
respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount now determined by this Court, together with interest @
7.5 % p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the
same, less already within, on filing appropriate application and paying
necessary Court fee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded interest
for the delay period and the same is hereby confirmed. The manner, mode and
disbursement of compensation, shall be as per the order of the Tribunal. The
CMA.No.3328 of 2024 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Jvm
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Tiruppur.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )
CMA No. 3326 of 2024
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
Jvm
CMA Nos. 3326 to 3328 of 2024
29-10-2026
__________
Page 15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:05 pm )