Partly allowed

Ayyappan v. P.Duraisamy

Madras HC2 Jul 2026CMA/1281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by claimants (son and daughter) seeking enhancement of compensation for death of their father in a road accident. Court upheld denial of loss of income as claimants were married adults not dependent on deceased, but enhanced parental consortium, loss of estate and added transportation charges.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,10,000 to Rs.1,46,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; insurer to deposit within 4 weeks; pay-and-recover liberty sustained.

Ayyappan Vs P.Duraisamy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

¶7

Ayyappan S/o Perumal, Arumbavur Post, Perambalur District.

¶8

Chellammal D/o Perumal, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶9

..Appellant(s)

¶10

¶11

P.Duraisamy S/o Periasamy, Malaiyalapatti Post, Perambalur District.

¶12

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co Ltd, Perambalur.

¶13

M.Chinnadurai S/o Muthu, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District.

¶14

[The 3^rd respondent was impleaded as per order in IA No.3 of 2021 dated 07.10.2021 and amended as per order in IA No.4 of 2021 dated 02.12.2021)

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

¶17

Civil Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow the CMA and enhance the award amount passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Perambalur by its Judgment dated 10.03.2023 and made in MCOP.No. 113/2021

For Appellant(s):

Mr.C.Vidhusan

Page1 of 8

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

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

S.Shanmitha

L.meena

For Respondent(s): Rr1 & 3 - Notice Dispensed With, Vide C/o Dated 23.06.2023 M/s. J.Michael Visuvasam For R2

¶26

Judgment

¶27

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Principal District Judge, Perambalur in MCOP No.113 of 2021 dated 10.03.2023 wherein the claimants are seeking for enhancement of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.

¶28

The claimants are the son and daughter of the deceased, Perumal.

¶29

The case of the claimant is that on 18.12.2020, at about 4.40 p.m, when the deceased was walking on the left hand side of the Arumbavur – A.Mettur road, the offending vehicle belonging to the 1^st respondent, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed on the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on 05.01.2021. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No.1198 of 2020. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed by the claimants before the Tribunal seeking for compensation.

¶30

Page2 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

¶33

The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶34

case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the two wheeler.

¶35

Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.1,10,000/- under various heads as follows :-

¶36

*Sl.No.*	*Compensation awarded under* *the head*	*Amount* *(in Rs.)*
1.	Parental consortium	Rs. 80,000/-
	Rs.40,000/- each(40,000 x 2)
2.	Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
	Total	Rs. 1,10,000/-

¶37

The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the

¶38

rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed this Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶39

Heard Mr.C.Vidhusan, learned counsel for appellants/claimants

¶40

and Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel for 2^nd respondent.

¶41

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either

¶42

side and the materials available on record.

¶43

Page3 of 8

¶44

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

¶45

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

¶46

This Court has also carefully went through the award passed by the

¶47

Tribunal.

¶48

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in not fixing the compensation under the head of loss of income. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation fixed under the other heads are also on the lower side and it requires the interference of this Court.

¶49

Per contra, the learned counsel for insurance company submitted that the Tribunal found that the 1^st claimant, aged about 42 years and the 2^nd claimant, aged about 46 years, were both married and living separately. Both of them were not dependent on the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal had rightly held that they are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of income. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation that has been fixed under the other heads are reasonable and it does not require the interference of this Court.

¶50

In the considered view of this Court, the deceased was aged about

¶51

60 years at the time of the accident and the 1^st claimant was the son, who was aged about 42 years and the 2^nd claimant was the daughter, who was aged about

¶52

Page4 of 8

¶53

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

¶54

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

¶55

46 years. Both of them were married and living separately. There was absolutely no material to show that both of them were dependents of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly denied to award compensation under the head of loss of income.

¶56

Insofar as the compensation under the other heads is concerned, this Court deems it fit to enhance the same by considering the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in [National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and others] reported in 2017 SCC online SC 1270 .

¶57

In view of the above, the compensation under the head of parental consortium is enhanced to Rs.44,000/- each (Rs.44,000/- x 2 = Rs.88,000/-). The compensation under the head of loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.16,500/each (Rs.16,500 x 2) = Rs.33,000/-. This Court is also inclined to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. Insofar as the compensation fixed under the head of funeral expenses is concerned, the same is sustained.

¶58

In the light of the above discussion, this Court modifies the compensation in the following manner:

¶59

__________ Page5 of 8

¶60

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

¶61

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

¶62

*Sl.No.*	*Compensation* *awarded under* *the head*	*Amount* *by the Tribunal* *(in Rs.)*	*Amount* *awarded by this* *Court(in Rs.)*
1.	Parental consortium	Rs. 80,000/-	Rs.88,000/-
2.	Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs.33,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Transportation charges		Rs.10,000/-
	Total	Rs.1,10,000/-	Rs.1,46,000/-

¶63

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,10,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,46,000/-. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. Insofar as the enhanced compensation of Rs.36,,000/- is concerned, the deficit court fee, if not paid, shall be paid by the appellants. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. Already the Tribunal has ordered for pay and recover and the said liberty is sustained.

¶64

__________ Page6 of 8

¶65

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

¶66

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

¶67

16.

¶68

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. No costs.

¶69

02-07-2026

¶70

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

¶71

RKA

¶72

To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Perambalur

¶73

__________ Page7 of 8

¶74

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

¶75

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

¶76

N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

¶77

RKA

¶78

CMA No. 1281 of 2023

¶79

02-07-2026

¶80

__________ Page8 of 8

¶81

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

Ayyappan v. P.Duraisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyappan v. P.Duraisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Janaki Vs The Managing Director

Madesh Vs Thimmarayan

M.Vadivel Vs K.Selvam

Hepziba Vs K.Sarathkumar

Minor Logesh Vs S.P.Selvam

K.Vasanthi Vs S.Vijaya Kumar