G.Nalini Vs K. Munusamy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

G.Nalini Vs K. Munusamy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The 2nd respondent (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) was directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, i.e. Rs.35,53,200/- (after deducting the amount already deposited), together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 1397 of 2022 before the MACT, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, within four weeks; upon such deposit the appellants/claimants may withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal after due process; the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay, if any, in filing the appeal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the deduction of 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased requires modification, the deceased being survived by his wife and daughter (the appellants). +1 more

Court's answer

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of the Tribunal's award is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Ratio / Principle

The 2nd appellant (daughter), having been married, cannot be considered a dependent of either the mother or the deceased; consequently the findings rendered by the Tribunal require no interference.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accidents - Enhancement - Dependency of married daughter. The High Court of Madras (T.V. Thamilselvi, J.) dismissed CMA No. 1487 of 2025, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the widow and daughter (appellants) seeking enhancement of the award dated 07-04-2025 in MCOP No. 1397 of 2022 (MACT, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai). Counsel for the appellants argued that, as the deceased was survived by his wife and daughter, the Tribunal's 50% deduction towards the deceased's personal expenses required modification; counsel for the 2nd respondent objected that the daughter, being married, was not dependent, supporting his contention with the Supreme Court decision reported as 2025 SCC Online SC 1090 : 2025 (3) RCR (Civil) 217 : 2025 INSC 675 (paras 13-14). Weighing both submissions, the Court concluded that the married 2nd appellant could not be considered a dependent of either her mother or the deceased, and that the Tribunal's findings therefore required no interference. The appeal was dismissed without costs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2nd respondent) was directed to deposit Rs. 35,53,200/- (balance after prior deposits) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, within four weeks, to the credit of MCOP No. 1397 of 2022; claimants permitted to withdraw as per the Tribunal's apportionment; no interest payable for the delay in filing the appeal.

CMA No. 1487 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CMA No. 1487 of 2025

1. G.Nalini

W/o. Gangadharan, Residing at No.4, MGR Street, Oragadam, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053

Ashwini D/o. Gangadharan, Residing at No.4, MGR Street, Oragadam, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. K. Munusamy

S/o. Kannan, No.12B/8,Kadappa Road, new Lakshmipuram, Kolathur, Chennai-99

2.The Manager United India Insurance co. Ltd., No.134, Silling Building 4th Floor, Motor TP Hub, Greams Road, Chennai600 006

Respondent(s)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1487 of 2025

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prays to enhance the award dated 07-04-2025 in MCOP.No.1397/2022 on the file of MACT, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

For Appellant(s): G. Vijaya Kumar

For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Maichael Visuvasam For R2

JUDGEMENT

The appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the award

dated 07.04.025 in MCOP.No.1397/2022 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased is

survived by his wife and daughter. Therefore, the 50% deduction towards the

personal expenses of the deceased requires modified.

The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent raised an objection,

contending that the daughter was already married and was not dependent on the

deceased. In support of this contention, he relied on the ratio laid down in 2025

SCC Online SC 1090: 2025(3) RCR(Civil) 217 : 2025 INSC 675, Paragraph

No.13, which reads as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1487 of 2025

" 13.Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial house hold and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise. It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother has now ceased. Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the record that appellant No.1 has failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased.

14. Therefore, it is our opinion the High Court correctly relied on Manjuri Bera while holding that appellant No.1, as the legal representative of the deceased, will only be entitled to compensation envisaged in Section 140 of hte Motor vehicle Act, 1988, as liability under the same does not cease to exist in the absence of dependency."

On considering both side submissions, it reveals that the daughter, 2nd

appellant / 2nd petitioner, cannot be considered a dependent of either the

mother or the deceased, since she was married. Hence, the findings rendered by

the Tribunal require no interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1487 of 2025

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

(i) The 2nd respondent, United India Insurance co. Ltd.,Chennai-600 006,

is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal i.e.,

Rs.35,53,200/- (after deducting the amount already deposited), together with

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the

date of deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 1397 of 2022 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai,

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt or uploading of a copy of

this order.

(ii). Upon such deposit being made by the 2nd respondent, the

appellants/claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same, as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, after following due process of law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1487 of 2025

( iii). The appellants/claimants shall not be entitled to claim interest for the

period of delay, if any, in filing this appeal.

26-06-2025

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2.The Manager United India Insurance co. Ltd., No.134, Silling Building 4th Floor, Motor TP Hub, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1487 of 2025

T.V.THAMILSELVI J. rri

CMA No. 1487 of 2025

26-06-2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis