logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7309 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CMA. No. 3189 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
Parties : Michel John Peter Versus R. Jerin Raja & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Ezhil Nilavan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, Dr. C. Paranthaman, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 05-10-2026
Head Note :-
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree passed in MCOP.No.1828/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Special Court, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 10-12-2024.)

1. The appellants/claimants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Special Court, Small Causes Court, Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.1828 of 2018, vide award dated 10.12.2024.

2. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. According to the claimants, on 29.12.2017, the deceased Jennifer Nirmala Jothi along with her friends, namely, Divya and Preethi, have travelled in a red colour Hyundai I20 Asta Car bearing Reg.No.TN 09 BY 3159 driven by its driver, namely, Vijay. At about 10.00 a.m., near Vettuvanam bus stop near Pallikonda Town, the car dashed with the backside of a parked lorry bearing Reg.No.KA 01 AG 0523 as the driver of the car had slept over, due to which, the said Jennifer Nirmala Jothi sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The first respondent is the owner of the car and the second respondent is the insurer of the car.

3. The first respondent/owner of the car was called absent and set ex-parte.

4. The second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter statement denying the manner of accident and stated that the accident has occurred due to parking of lorry in the highway without any signal and therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

5. On the side of the claimants, first claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Divya/injured was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P30 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were marked. Disability Certificate issued in respect of the injured/ claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1837 of 2018 was marked as Ex.C1.

6. On appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.W.2, who travelled along with the deceased Jennifer Nirmala Jothi, held that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent’s car, the accident occurred and also opined that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company. With regard to the quantum of compensation, though the claimants stated that the deceased was working as Process Advisor in Barclays Global Services Private Limited and earning a sum of Rs.22,000/- per month, in the absence of proof for the same, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as monthly income of the deceased and added 40% towards future prospects and deducted ½ towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, since the deceased was unmarried and the multiplier “18” was adopted and a sum of Rs.22,68,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of dependency and also the following compensation was awarded under the other heads:-

S.No.

Heads

Amount

1

Loss of Dependency

Rs.22,68,000/-

2.

Loss of Consortium

Rs.80,000/-

3

Loss of Estate

Rs.15,000/-

4

Funeral Expenses

Rs.15,000/-

Total

Rs.23,78,000/-

7. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that P.W.1 has clearly deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Process Advisor in Barclays Global Services Private Limited and was earning a sum of Rs.22,000/- per month and the details of the salary have also been marked as Ex.P4 and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.22,000/-. The compensation awarded under the other heads is also very meager and the same has to be enhanced.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / Insurance Company submits that Ex.P4/appointment order came to be issued only in the month of September 2016 and the bank statement of the deceased has not been placed before the Tribunal and in the absence of proof for the same, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and there is no infirmity in the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal.

10. This Court considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record.

11. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and negligence fastened on the driver of the first respondent’s car. The only dispute raised by the appellants/claimants is with regard to fixation of monthly income of the deceased. A perusal of Ex.P4/appointment order of the deceased Jennifer Nirmala Jothi, shows that the deceased was issued with the appointment order on 27.09.2016, wherein, the estimated cost of salary of the deceased was Rs.2,68,000/- per annum and the employment is subject to a probationary period of six months or such additional period as the Company may in its discretion consider necessary. It is pertinent to note here that the accident took place on 29.12.2017 and Ex.P4/Appointment order was issued on 27.09.2016. Admittedly, the claimants have not filed any bank statement, salary slip and have not chosen to examine the employer of the deceased. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased as 23 years at the time of accident. Hence, taking into consideration Ex.P4/Appointment order and the fact that the accident took place on 29.12.2017 and considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident, this Court is inclined to enhance the monthly income of the deceased from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.17,000/- and accordingly, the Loss of dependency would be:

Monthly Income :

Rs. 17,000/-

Add: Future Prospects :

40% of Rs.17,000/- :

Rs. 6,800/-

Rs. 23,800/-

Annual Income :

(23,800 * 12)

Rs. 2,85,600/-

Less : Personal expenses Rs.2,85,600/- * 1/2 :

Rs.1,42,800/-

Rs.1,42,800/-

Multiplier :

x 18

Loss of dependency :

Rs.25,70,400/-

12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads, namely, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, appears to be just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under:

S.No

Head of Compensation

Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs)

Amount awarded by this Court (Rs)

1.

Loss of Dependency

Rs.22,68,000/-

Rs.25,70,400/-

2.

Loss of Consortium

Rs.80,000/-

Rs.80,000/-

3.

Loss of Estate

Rs.15,000/-

Rs.15,000/-

4.

Funeral Expenses

Rs.15,000/-

Rs.15,000/-

Total

Rs.23,78,000/-

Rs.26,80,400/-

13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.23,78,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.26,80,400/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The second respondent is directed to deposit the entire award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less 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 M.C.O.P.No.1828 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Special Court, Small Causes Court, Chennai. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount, if any already withdrawn, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal by making proper application before the Tribunal. Insofar as the enhanced compensation is concerned, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delay period of 463 days as was ordered by this Court in C.M.P.No.16771 of 2026 on 27.08.2026. The appellants are directed to pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal