(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2026 made in M.C.O.P.No.342 of 2025 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)
1. The appellants/claimants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.342 of 2025, vide award dated 14.07.2026.
2. The first claimant is the wife, second and third claimants are children of the deceased and fourth and fifth claimants are the parents of the deceased.
3. According to the claimants, on 01.05.2024 at about 14.30 hours, when the deceased Felix Roy Sudharsan was travelling in a car bearing Reg.No.TN 18 AZ 5834 from Chennai to GNT Road Gummidipoondi in front of Puthuvayal overbridge, a Ashoka Leyland Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 34 X 4095 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the car, due to which, the said Felix Roy Sudharsan sustained injuries and died on the spot. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry and the second respondent is the insurer of the lorry.
4. The first respondent/owner of the lorry was called absent and set ex-parte.
5. The second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter statement denying the manner of accident and stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
6. On the side of the claimants, first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and eye-witness was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
7. On appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent’s lorry, the accident occurred and also found that as per Ex.P10/insurance policy, the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent and held that the second respondent was liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal considered Ex.P17/Driving licence of the deceased, in which, the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 10.06.1988 and therefore, fixed the age of the deceased as 35 years at the time of accident. Though the claimants stated that the deceased was working as Refrigeration Engineer and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, in the absence of proof for the same, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017(2) TNMAC 609, 40% was added towards future prospects and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1, considering the number of dependents of the deceased, 1/4th was deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and the multiplier “16” was adopted and thereby, a sum of Rs.36,28,800/- 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.36,28,800/- |
| 2. | Loss of Consortium | Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.44,000/- * 5) |
| 3. | Loss of Estate | Rs.16,500/- |
| 4. | Funeral Expenses | Rs.16,500/- |
| 5. | Medical Bills | Nil |
| Total | Rs.38,81,800/- |
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/- per month. In fact, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 35 years and was working as Refrigeration Engineer and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Without considering the same, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.18,000/- as monthly income of the deceased which is very meager and the same has to be enhanced.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / Insurance Company submits that since there was no proof produced for the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month and there is no infirmity in the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal.
11. This Court considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record.
12. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and negligence fastened on the driver of the first respondent’s lorry. It is seen from the records that the accident took place on 01.05.2024. As per Ex.P17/driving licence of the deceased, the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 10.06.1988 and considering the same, the age of the deceased was fixed as 35 years by the Tribunal. Though the appellants/claimants stated that the deceased was working as Refrigeration Engineer and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, in the absence of proof for the same, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. However, considering the fact that the accident took place on 01.05.2024 and that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Refrigeration Engineer, this Court is inclined to enhance the monthly income of the deceased from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.19,000/- and accordingly, the Loss of dependency would be:
13. 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:
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.38,81,800/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.40,83,400/- 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.342 of 2025 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, 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. 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.