CMA/1782/2024 of Selvi Vs M/s. Lotus Integrated Logistics
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
__________
Page1 of 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
CMA No.1782 of 2024 :
1. Selvi
2. Mani
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. M/s. Lotus Integrated Logistics
Pvt Ltd.
2. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Reliance House, 4 th Floor, No.6,
Haddows road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 6.
..Respondent(s)
CMA No.1951 of 2024 :
The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Reliance House, 4 th Floor, No.6,
Haddows road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 6.
..Appellant(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
__________
Page2 of 9
Vs
1. Selvi
2. Mani
3. M/s.Lotus Integrated Logistics Private Limited
..Respondent(s)
Both the appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree, dated
25.09.2023, made in MCOP No.3406 of 2021 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal - cum- II Court of Small Causes, Chennai
For Appellant(s) in
C.M.A.No.:1782/2024
& Respondents 1 & 2 in
C.M.A.No.1951/2024 :
Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondent(s) No.2
in C.M.A.No.1782/2024
& Appellant in
C.M.A.No.1951/2024 :
Mrs.R.Sree Vidhya
For Respondent 1 in C.M.A.No.1782/2024 &
Respondent 3 in C.M.A.No.1951/2024 : No appearance
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
Both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the same order and
decretal order, dated 25.09.2023, passed in M.C.O.P.No.3406 of 2021 on the
file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
__________
Page3 of 9
2. While C.M.A.No.1782 of 2024 is filed by the claimants, seeking
enhancement of compensation, C.M.A.No.1951 of 2024 is filed by the insurer,
questioning the quantum of compensation.
3. The case of the petitioners in the Claim Petition was that on
29.07.2021, at about 01.00 hours, while the deceased Venkatesan was driving
Dost Van, bearing registration No.TN-13-1690 on Puzhal – Tambaram Bypass
Road, Chennai, a container Lorry, bearing registration No.TN-04-AR-9533,
stopped on the road without indicating any signal, indicator or parking light, due
to which, the Dost Van, driven by the deceased hit the rear side of the container
Lorry, as a result whereof the deceased sustained multiple fractures all over the
body. It was also stated that the deceased was admitted to Ki lpauk Government
Medical College Hospital, Chennai, but he died on the same day in t he hospital.
It was contended that the driver of the container Lorry alone was responsible for
the said accident. It was also contended that both the owner and the insurer were
liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with interest and costs. Hence, they
filed the Claim Petition.
4. Respondents filed a counter affidavit, denying the averments made i n
the petition. It was stated that the deceased drove the vehicle Dost Van without
following the traffic rules and dashed the container lorry on rear side, due to
which the accident occurred. It was also stated that the accide nt occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the deceased and hence the respondents were not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
__________
Page4 of 9
liable to pay any compensation. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues
and proceeded with trial.
6. During the course of trial, the first petitioner examined herself as
P.W.1 and one eye witness was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-15 were
marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the side of respondents, no oral
evidence was adduced and no exhibits were also marked.
7. Considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal
allowed the claim of the petitioners in part, awarding a sum of Rs.22,19,000/-
towards compensation, as against the claim of Rs.48,00,000/-.
8. Questioning the quantum of the award, both the claimants and the
insurer filed these appeals, as stated above.
9. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the deceased was
aged 23 years at the time of accident, but the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of
17, instead of 18. He would also contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the
notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-, as the
deceased was earning Rs.24,000/- per month at the time of accident.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer would contend that
the container Lorry was parked at the extreme left side of the r oad and, without
any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, there was no possibility
for the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, she would contend that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
__________
Page5 of 9
accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and hence contr ibutory
negligence be fastened on the deceased.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
material available on record.
12. Concedingly, there is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accide nt.
The liability is also not disputed.
13. Now, the only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is,
whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just or not ?
14. While the claimants contend that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal was on lower side, according to the insurer, it was higher.
15. To examine the point, if we look at the award impugned, the Tribuna l
awarded a sum of Rs.21,42,000/- towards “Loss of Income/Dependency”. To
arrive at this figure, the Tribunal took into consideration the notional monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. As the deceased was aged below 40
years, the Tribunal, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others , 2017 (2)
TANMAC 609 (SC), added a further amount under the head “Future Prospects”
at 40% by Rs.6,000/-, By so doing, the Tribunal fixed the income of the
deceased at Rs.21,600/-, instead of Rs.21,000/-.
16. In this context, we opine that since the accident occurred of la te in the
year 2021, the notional monthly income of the deceased could be fixed higher at
Rs.20,000/-. If we add 40% towards future prospects to the said amount, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
__________
Page6 of 9
total monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.28,000/- i.e.,
Rs.20,000/- + Rs.8,000/-. Since the deceased died as a bachelor, leaving behind
his parents, the standard deduction would be 50% towards personal expenses.
Hence, the monthly income of the deceased would arrive at Rs.14,000/- i.e.,
Rs.28,000/- divided by 2.
17. As could be seen from Ex.P-5, Driving Licence, the deceased was
aged 23 years at the time of accident. Therefore, as per the r atio laid down by
the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 (2)
TANMAC 1 (SC), the appropriate multiplier is 18, instead of 17 orde red by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal, even after noting that the deceased was a ged 24 years
at the time of accident, erred in taking into account the proper multiplier and
adopted 17, instead of 18.
18. Thus, “Loss of Income/Dependency” for the family of the deceased
would come to Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 18 = 30,24,000/-, instead of Rs.21,42,000/-
ordered by the Tribunal. That apart, the Tribunal awarded a sum of R s.44,000/-
under the head “Loss of Consortium” to one claimant. Since, in this ca se, the
claimants are two in number, we multiply the said amount by two, which comes
to Rs.44,000 x 2 = Rs.88,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the
head “Loss of Estate” at Rs.16,500/- is confirmed, so also the amount under the
head “Funeral Expenses” at Rs.16,500/-.
19. As a result, the total award amount comes to Rs.30,24,000/- +
Rs.88,000/- + Rs.16,500 + Rs.16,500/- = Rs.31,45,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
__________
Page7 of 9
20. However, on going through the Rough Sketch, Ex.P-13, and the oral
evidence of the parties, it is seen that the container Lorry was parked at the
corner of the road on left side and the accident took place at midni ght at 01.30
A.M., which itself showed that, in the midnight, the container Lorry w as parked
negligently by its driver. But, taking note of the fact that the cont ainer Lorry
was parked at the extreme left side of the road, we opine that 100% liability
cannot be fastened on the insurer. Accordingly, we deduct 10% of the award
amount towards “Contributory Negligence” of the deceased, which is
Rs.3,14,500/-.
21. Now, the award amount, taken as a whole, would be Rs.31,45,000/-
minus Rs.3,14,500/- = Rs.28,30,500/-.
22. The Tribunal awarded the entire amount to be payable to the first
petitioner – mother alone, and rejected any apportionment to the second
petitioner – father, which is not disputed before this Court. Hence, we award the
entire amount to the first petitioner – mother, by name Selvi.
23. Further, from the appeal filed by the claimants, it is seen that the
value of the appeal is restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-. However, by way of this order,
the award amount is enhanced by Rs.6,11,500/-.
24. In this context, we say, that a Court or Tribunal can award more
compensation than the restricted amount claimed by a party, partic ularly in
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cases, based on the principle of "just
compensation". The Supreme Court has ruled that if evidence supports a hi gher
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
__________
Page8 of 9
amount, Tribunals must award it, even if the claimants restrict ed their claim
initially, sometimes due to financial constraints on court fees. In the instant
case, the evidence on record establishes that the claimant is enti tled to a higher
sum. Therefore, this Court can award that amount, though it is highe r than the
restricted claim. It is also to be stated that if the awa rd exceeds the claimed
amount, the Court has to require the claimant to pay the additional court fee on
the higher amount. Accordingly, we direct the claimant-appellant to pay
appropriate Court Fee for the enhanced amount, if the same is not paid, which
shall also be ensured by the Registry of this Court.
25. C.M.A.No.1782 of 2024 filed by the claimants is allowed and
C.M.A.No.1951 of 2024 filed by the insurer is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.15172 of 2024 is closed.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
22-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
DIXIT
To
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum
II Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
__________
Page9 of 9
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR J.
DIXIT
CMA Nos.1782 & 1951 of 2024
22-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis