LAKSHMI vs SENTHIL MURUGAN
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA No. 711 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 711 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA013098712025}
Lakshmi
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Senthil Murugan
2. United India Insurance Company Limited
14/1, 77B, Salem Main Road,
Pudusampalli, Raman Nagar Post,
Mettur Dam,
Mettur Taluk,
Salem District 636 403
..Respondent(s)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to enhance the compensation to an amount of
Rs.10,88,075/- awarded in MCOP.No.56 of 2022 dated 02.04.2025 on the file
of the Hon’ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mettur, with appropriate
interest and costs, without interfering with the findings on negligence and
liability.
For Appellant(s): Mr.C.Deepakkumar
For Respondent(s): No appearance (For R2)
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful claimant has preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of
the compensation. The claimant is the mother of the deceased one Manikandan.
__________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )
CMA No. 711 of 2026
2. The Claim Petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act [hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’], seeking compensation
by the legal heir of the deceased Manikandan, who died in the road accident.
According to the claimant, on 08.04.2022 at about 09.00 p.m, while the
deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN88 F 4096 from
st
Madhaiyankuttai Mettur near Government ITI, at the time, the driver of the 1
respondent driven his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN33 AE 7045
came from the opposite direction only rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the front side of the motor cycle driven by the deceased. Due to the
accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head, face and all over
the body. Immediately, the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Mettur
and shifted to Royal Care Hospital, Coimbatore and shifted to Salem
Government Hospital, thereafter he was died on 10.04.2022. According to the
claimant, the deceased was working as a Hotel Master and also as an acting
driver, earned a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month at the time of accident. The first
respondent was called absent and set ex parte before the tribunal. The first
nd
respondent has filed a counter statement, wherein it has been stated that the 2
respondent insurance company had denied the manner of accident. It was
further stated that at the time of accident, the rider of the motor cycle namely
st
Naveenraj, who is the son of the 1 respondent had a valid driving licence. The
deceased was driving his Motor Vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high
speed and dashed against the front side of the first respondent’s vehicle. Hence,
__________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )
CMA No. 711 of 2026
the accident was happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
deceased.
nd
3. The 2 respondent / Insurance company has filed a counter statement,
denying the manner of the accident. It was contended that the accident occurred
only due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased, who drove his two
wheeler on the wrong side of the road from Bhavani – Mettur side and hit
against the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN33 AE 7045, which came in the
right side from Mettur – Bhavani side and caused the accident. Hence, the rash
and negligent driving of the deceased alone was the prima facie cause for the
accident.
4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, the claimant herself was
examined as P.W.1 and an eyewitness was examined as Ex.P.W.2. Exs.P1 to
P12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined
and no documents were marked. On appreciation of the evidence adduced on
either side, the Tribunal found, based on the evidence of P.W.2, who was an eye
witnesses to the accident, that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent riding of the offending motor cycle.
5. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed the
age of the deceased at 26 years. In the absence of proof of monthly income, the
__________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )
CMA No. 711 of 2026
Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.19,000/- per month. It also added 40%
towards future prospects and deducted 50% towards personal expenses and
living expenses and applied a Multiplier 17. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded
a sum of Rs.27,13,200/- towards Loss of Dependency. The Tribunal also
awarded compensation under other heads and the same are extracted hereunder:
Sl.No
Heads Amount granted by the Tribunal
.
(Rs.)
1 Monthly Income Rs.19,000 (Notional)
2 Annual Income Rs.2,28,000/-
3 Future Prospects (40%) Rs.7,600 per month
4 Monthly Income including future
Rs.26,600/-
prospects
5 Personal Expenses
(Deduction of 1/3)
Rs.13,300/- per month
6 Annual Contribution Rs.1,59,600/- per annum
7 Multiplier 17 (Between 26-30)
8 Loss of Dependency Rs.1,59,600 x 17 = Rs.27,13,200/-
9 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (10% increase after 3 years
+ 3 years)
10 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- (10% increase after 3 years
+ 3 years)
11 Loss of Consortium (for
Rs.48,400/- (10% increase after 3 years
claimant)
+ 3 years)
12 Medical Bills (Ex.P11) Rs.1,14,025.25
13 100% award amount Rs.29,11,925.25
14 Rounded Off Rs.29,11,925.00
6. Aggrieved over the same, the claimant has preferred the appeal,
seeking enhancement of compensation.
__________
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )
CMA No. 711 of 2026
7. Despite service of notice on the second respondent / Insurance
company and the name of the Insurance company being printed in the daily
nd
cause list, none appeared on behalf of the 2 respondent.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant would
submit that the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident and he was
working as a Master in Hotel and also working as an acting driver and earned a
sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income
of the deceased Rs.19,000/-, which appears to be meagre and the same requires
enhancement.
9. It is further submitted that the deceased was a batchelor and that the
claimant, being his mother, was dependent on the sole income of the deceased.
10. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the records.
11. It is seen from the records that the Tribunal found that the first
nd
respondent’s vehicle was insured with the 2 respondent Insurance Company
and that the policy was in force at the time of accident, as evidenced by Ex.P6
relating to the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 33 AE 7045.
__________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )
CMA No. 711 of 2026
12.A perusal of Ex.P12, the driving license stands in the name of the
deceased shows that the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as
10.05.1996. Ex.P3, the post-mortem report also shows that the age of the
deceased was 26 years at the time of accident. In view of the above, and in the
absence of any contra evidence, this Court finds that the Tribunal rightly fixed
the age of the deceased as 26 years at the time of accident. P.W.2, in his
evidence, has stated that the deceased was working as a Hotel Master in his
hotel and was also working as an acting driver under him. However, no
document was filed to substantiate the contentions of the P.W.2. A perusal of
the Ex.P12, the copy of the driving license stands in the name of the deceased
shows that he had obtained a driving license to drive the light motor vehicle.
However, there is no proof to show that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/-
per month.
13. Considering the fact that the accident took place on 08.04.2022 and
that the deceased was aged 26 years, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the monthly income of Rs.19,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. Hence, this
Court is inclined to fix monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-as
notional income. By applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (2)
TNMAC 609 (SC). As the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident,
40% is to be added towards Future Prospectus. Accordingly, the monthly
__________
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )
CMA No. 711 of 2026
income, including the future prospects works out to Rs.28,000/- (Rs.20,000/- +
40% of Rs.20,000) Since the deceased was a batchelor, 50% is to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses. Thus, the monthly contribution to the
family works out to Rs.14,000/- and the annual contribution works out to
Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 12). The multiplier “17” was adopted as per the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2)
TNMAC 1 (SC). Applying the Multiplier of 17, the Loss of Dependency is
calculated at Rs.28,56,000/- (Rs.1,68,000 x 17)
Monthly Income : Rs. 20,000/-
Add: Future Prospects : Rs. 8,000/-
40% of Rs.20,000/- -----------------
Total Monthly Income : Rs. 28,000/-
Annual Income : Rs. 3,36,000/-
(28,000 * 12)
Less : Personal expenses
50% of Rs.3,36,000/- : Rs. 1,68,000/-
-----------------
Rs. 1,68,000/-
Multiplier : x 17
------------------
Loss of income : Rs.28,56,000/-
------------------
14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is
appears to be reasonable and proper and in the light of the above discussion, the
__________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )
CMA No. 711 of 2026
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced by revising the
amount under the head of Loss of Dependency.
15. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified
as hereunder:-
Sl.
No
Heads of
compensation
Amount granted
Amount granted
by this Court (Rs.)
Granted/
Enhanced/
Confirmed/
by the Tribunal
.
(Rs.)
Reduced
1 Loss of
Dependency
Rs.27,13,200/- Rs.28,56,000/- Enhanced
(Rs.1,42,800)
2 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/- Confirmed
3 Funeral
Expenses
Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/- Confirmed
4 Loss of
Consortium (for
Rs.48,400/- Rs.48,400/- Confirmed
claimant)
5 Medical Bills
Rs.1,14,025.25/- Rs.1,14,025.25/- Confirmed
(Ex.P11)
6 100% award
Rs.29,11,925.25 Rs.29,11,925.25 Confirmed
amount
7 Total Rs.29,11,925.00 Rs.30,54,725/- Enhanced
16. In the result, C.M.A.No711 of 2026 filed by the appellants/claimants
is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.29,11,925/- is
hereby enhanced to Rs.30,54,725/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The second
respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount
now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount
__________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )
CMA No. 711 of 2026
already deposited, if any, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of MCOP.No.56 of 2022 dated
02.04.2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mettur.
On such deposit, the claimant/appellant is permitted to withdraw the award
amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the
amount, if any, already withdrawn, by making proper application before the
Tribunal. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of
payment of compensation remains unaltered. The manner and mode of
disbursement of compensation shall be as per the order of the Tribunal.
However, it is made clear that the claimants are not entitled for interest for the
period of delay of 37 days as was ordered by this Court in C.M.P.No.5029 of
2026 vide order dated 06.03.2026. The appellant is directed to pay the necessary
Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. No costs.
13-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kak
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mettur.
__________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )
CMA No. 711 of 2026
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )
CMA No. 711 of 2026
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
kak
CMA No. 711 of 2026
13-10-2026
__________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )