Partly allowed

Saminathan v. E.Manikandan

Madras HC19 Jan 2026CMA/3876/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed against quantum of compensation in a fatal motor accident claim where a truck hit a motorcycle pillion rider. The Court enhanced notional income to Rs.18,500/- with 25% future prospects and enhanced compensation from Rs.24,45,000 to Rs.27,60,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.27,60,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum; insurer to pay within 12 weeks; appellants entitled to withdraw shares per Tribunal apportionment.

Saminathan Vs E.Manikandan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

C.M.A.No.3876 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.01.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶6

C.M.A.No. 3876 of 2025

¶7

Saminathan

¶8

Tamilarasan

¶9

Jeevitha (Minor)

...Appellant

Versus

1. E. Manikandan

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order made in M.C.O.P. No.1317 of 2023, dated 23.04.2025, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Judge, Small causes Court Chennai.

¶16

For Appellant : G. Anitha

¶17

For Respondents : R1 - Notice Dispensed with R2 – Mr. J. Chandran

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

C.M.A.No.3876 of 2025

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

C.M.A.No. 3876 of 2025 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No. 1317 of 2023, dated 23.04.2025, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Judge, Small causes court, Chennai, challenging the quantum of award passed in the said claim petition.

¶23

2. Briefly stated, on 02.22.2023, at about 19:00 hours, the deceased, was travelling as a pillion in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 25 X 7502, at that time, a Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck bearing Reg.No.TN 97 Z 2041 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the backside of the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling due to which he sustained fatal injuries. The deceased, was working as a Proprietor cum Tailor and was earning a sum of Rs. 900/per day i.e., Rs. 27,000/- per month.

¶24

3. The claimants are the Children and the husband of the deceased, who filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. A sum of Rs.49,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. The Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.16,500/- per month, while the deceased was earning Rs.27,000/- per month. Challenging the said award, the 2/6

¶25

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

¶26

C.M.A.No.3876 of 2025

¶27

appellants are before this Court.

¶28

4.The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company

¶29

has submitted that the driver of the Mahindra Bolero Maxi truck was not holding a valid driving license and that the petitioner had to prove the place, date and time of the accident. The learned counsel would further submit that the, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a fair and just compensation which warrants any interference by this Court.

¶30

5. Heard both sides. Records perused.

¶31

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the year of accident and the plight of the claimants, this Court deems it fit to fix the notional income of the deceased as Rs.18,500/- per month and add 25% towards the future prospects, and after 1/3rd deduction, loss of dependency is arrived at Rs. 25,90,000/- (18,500 X 25 X 100 X 12 X 14 X 1/3).

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

C.M.A.No.3876 of 2025

¶35

7. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to enhance the

¶36

compensation under the various heads, which are as follows:

¶37

S.No.	Description	Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.)	Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency	23,10,000	25,90,000
2.	Loss of Consortium	1,00,000	44,000
3.	Loss of Estate	15,000	16,500
4.	Funeral Expenses	15,000	16,500
5.	Transportation	5,000	5,000
6.	Love and Affection	-	88,000
	TOTAL	24,45,000/-	27,60,000/- (Enhanced by Rs.3,15,000/-)

¶38

8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion,

¶39

(i) the present appeal is partly allowed and it is held that the appellants shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.27 ,60,000/ - along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the realization of the compensation.

¶40

(ii) The 2^nd Respondent is directed to pay the above said compensation amount now determined by this Court to the appellants along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

C.M.A.No.3876 of 2025

¶44

this judgment. The claimants are not entitled to claim any interest for the default period in filing this appeal as per order of this Court dated 10.12.2025.

¶45

(iii) On such deposit being made, the 1st and 2 nd appellants are at liberty to withdraw their share as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, with costs and interest, after filing a proper petition for withdrawal.

¶46

(iv) The share of the minor claimant (3rd appellant), as apportioned by the Tribunal, with costs and interests, shall be deposited in a fixed z deposit in any one of the Nationali ed bank until they attain majority, and the guardian of the minor claimants is permitted to withdraw the interest amount accrued thereon once in three months.

¶47

19.01.2026

¶48

vsn

¶49

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶50

To:

¶51

1.The IV Judge, Small Causes Court, The Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Chennai

¶52

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶53

5/6

¶54

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

¶55

C.M.A.No.3876 of 2025

¶56

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.

¶57

vsn

¶58

C.M.A.No.3876 of 2025

¶59

19.01.2026

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

Saminathan v. E.Manikandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saminathan v. E.Manikandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karthick Vs the Managing Director

G.Pandi Vs P. Rajeswari

Lakshmi Ammal Vs Arunraj

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rajeshwari

Lakshmi Vs S.Venkatesan

The Managing Director Vs JayaGopal Son of Venkatesan