The District Educational Officer, v. S.Chitra,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.02.2026 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL and C.M.P.No.4867 of 2026 1.The District Educational Officer, Having their office at District Educational Office, Pollachi - 642 001.
2.The Director, Director of School Education, Having their office at College Road, Chennai.
... Appellants Vs.
1.S.Chitra 2.Minor S.Sivaranjani 3.P.Krishnasamy 4.K.Kaliammal 5.S.Ravikumar ... Respondents Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Pollachi, in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2015, dated 01.09.2025.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Nanmaran Special Government Pleader
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Challenging the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Pollachi, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for brevity) in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2015, dated 01.09.2015, awarding a compensation of Rs.21,18,000/- to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, the present Appeal has been filed by the owners of the offending vehicle. 2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3.Brief facts of the case are as follows :
On 17.03.2014 at about 9.30 a.m., when the deceased Selvaraj was travelling in his motor bike bearing Registration No.TN-41-Q-2769 from Vadakipalayam to Gothavadi Thoppu, proceeding towards South to North in Pollachi to Coimbatore Main Road, near Mallupadi Railway Gate, in front of
Magna Company, a Jeep bearing Registration No.TN-41-G-0135 belonging to the appellants and driven by the 5th respondent came in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction, i.e., North to South, with very great speed without following the traffic rules and regulations, without blowing horn, and dashed against the motor bike of the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased was thrown out of his motor cycle and sustained severe injuries on his vital organs and died in the spot itself. The respondents 1 to 4, being the wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2015 before the Tribunal, claiming a compensation of Rs.1,18,70,000/- under various heads.
It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was 36 years old at the time of accident and he was a coconut tree maintainer and agricultural coolie by profession and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. 4.The 5th respondent/driver of the offending vehicle (Jeep) filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal contending that the deceased suddenly applied brake and fell on the right side of the road from his motor cycle and due to the sudden fall of the deceased, the 1st respondent was unable to control his vehicle.
negligence of the deceased.
5.The 2nd appellant, owner of the offending vehicle (Jeep), filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal contending that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Besides, they disputed the age and income of the deceased.
6.Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Exs.P1 to P18. On the side of the respondents before the Tribunal, R.W.1 was examined, however, no document marked. 7.The Tribunal, on appreciation of entire evidence and materials on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (Jeep). Further, considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and further, by adding future prospects @ 40% and after deducting 1⁄4th towards his personal expenses, and by adopting multiplier method, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,90,000/- towards loss of income. Further, the Tribunal has awarded other amounts
under various other heads as follows :
Head Amount awarded by the Tribunal Loss of income Rs.18,90,000/- Loss of Consortium for the 1st petitioner Rs.48,000/- Loss of Consortium for the 2nd petitioner Rs.48,000/- Loss of Consortium for the petitioners 3 and 4 each Rs.48,000/- Rs.96,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Rs.21,18,000/- 8.Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,18,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. Out of the total compensation amount, the Tribunal allotted a sum of Rs.8,18,000/- to the 1st claimant/wife; Rs.7,00,000/- to the 2nd claimant/minor daughter; and Rs.3,00,000/- each to the 3rd and 4th claimants/parents. The Tribunal permitted the 1st claimant/wife to withdraw 50% of the amount awarded to her along with interest and the amount allotted to the 2nd claimant/minor daughter was ordered to be refunded to her on she attaining majority. The claimants 3 and 4/parents were permitted to withdraw the full amounts awarded to them along with interest.
9.Challenging the Award of the Tribunal, the owners of the offending vehicle have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 10.The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the accident was due to the sudden application of brake by the deceased. It is relevant to note that P.W.3 has been examined as eye-witness to the accident. He has clearly spoken as to the nature of the accident. He has deposed in his chief-examination that, on the fateful day, he was driving his two-wheeler behind the two-wheeler of the deceased. At that time, the offending vehicle came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained injuries on his head and all over his body and died on the spot.
Though he has admitted that the deceased applied sudden brake and fell on the right side of the road, he has specifically denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred only due to the sudden application of brake by the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the Jeep driver.
of the appellants has some force, we are of the view that, had the Jeep driver maintained a safe speed and distance from the vehicle coming in the opposite direction, the accident could have been avoided. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, has clearly found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. Hence, the contention of the appellants in this regard, has no legs to stand. 11.The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, is exorbitant. It is relevant to note that, though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.
30,000/- as agricultural coolie, since there was no proof to that effect, the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased and by following the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in Andal and others v. Avinav Kannan and another reported in 2019 (1) TNMAC 54, fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. Thereafter, the Tribunal has added future aspects @ 40% as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, has adopted a multiplier of 15 and has awarded a compensation of Rs.18,90,000/- towards loss of income, which, in our view, is just and reasonable and requires no interference.
12.However, as far as loss of consortium is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.48,000/- to each of the claimants. Further, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, each. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609, has fixed reasonable figures on the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Therefore, we are of the view that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under these heads are on the higher side. Hence, we are inclined to modify the Award of the Tribunal as follows :
Heads Amount awarded by the Amount awarded by this Result Tribunal Court Loss of income Rs.18,90,000/- Rs.18,90,000/- Confirmed Loss of Consortium for the 1st petitioner Rs.48,000/- Rs.40,000/- Reduced Loss of Consortium for the 2nd petitioner Rs.48,000/- Rs.40,000/- Reduced Loss of Consortium for the petitioners 3 and 4 each Rs.48,000/- Rs.96,000/- Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2) Reduced Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- Rs.15,000/- Reduced Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- Rs.15,000/- Reduced Total Compensation Rs.21,18,000/- Rs.20,80,000/- 13.Accordingly, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs.38,000/- and the modified Award amount arrives at Rs.20,80,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only).
The apportionment among the claimants is modified as follows : Claimants Amount apportioned Amount apportioned by this Court 1st claimant/wife Rs.8,18,000/- Rs.8,10,000/- 2nd claimant/ minor daughter by the Tribunal Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.6,90,000/- Claimants 3 and 4/ Rs.3,00,000/- each Rs.2,90,000/- each parents Total Rs.21,18,000/- Rs.20,80,000/- 14.Except the above modifications, rest of the Award of the Tribunal stands confirmed.
15.Though the compensation is reduced, we are of the view that notice can be dispensed with in this matter. If notice is sent, it will take further time and delay the process, which will affect not only the claimants, but also cause burden on the Government, insofar as interest component is concerned. Only for that purpose, we have consciously avoided sending notice.
16.We direct the appellants to deposit the modified Award amount of Rs.20,80,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only), along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., as ordered by the Tribunal, along with costs, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amounts apportioned to them in the manner as directed by the Tribunal. The amount allotted to the 2nd claimant/minor daughter, shall be kept in an interest bearing deposit in any of the Nationalised Bank and shall be disbursed to her, along with accrued interest, on she attaining majority, on making appropriate application before the Tribunal.
17.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modifications, at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (N.S.K., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 25.02.2026 mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Nonspeaking order To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Pollachi.
2.The District Educational Officer, Having their office at District Educational Office, Pollachi - 642 001.
3.The Director, Director of School Education, Having their office at College Road, Chennai.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
mkn 25.02.2026