C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 06.11.2025

Pronounced on : 02.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

and

CMP(MD)No.13450 of 2024

The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation Ltd., (Salem),

Near Bus Stand,

Salem.

... Appellant / Respondent No.2

Vs.

1.V.Chithra

2.V.Nithya

Thayarammal (Died) ... Respondent 1 and 2 /

Petitioners

3.M.Murugan ... Respondent No.3 /

Respondent No.1

4.Hemalatha ... Respondent No.4 /

Respondent No.3

1/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgement and Decree

passed in M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2017 dated 05.03.2024 on the file of the

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and

Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Palani, Dindigul District and allow the

appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Veera Kathiravan,

Additional Advocate General,

Assisted by,

Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

For R-1 & R-2 : M/s.N.V.Subha Priya

For R-3 : No appearance

For R-4 : Mr.B.Anandan

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J .)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment

and decree dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Palani,

Dindigul District in M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal

awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,13,81,664/- (Rupees One Crore

Thirteen Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Four only)

with interest at 7.5% per annum for the death of one T. Vivekananthan

in a motor accident that occurred on 05.04.2010.

2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per

their ranking before the Tribunal, unless otherwise indicated.

Factual background:

The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:

3. On 05.04.2010, at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased, T.

Vivekananthan, was travelling from Krishnagiri to Hosur in a Tata

Indigo car bearing registration No.KA-04-ME-9145 on the National

Highway. The car was driven by his driver slowly, carefully and

cautiously towards Hosur. When the vehicle proceeded near

Samalpallam ‘U’ turn, a bus belonging to the Tamil Nadu State

Transport Corporation, bearing registration No.TN-29-N-1892, came

from the opposite direction at a high speed, hit the central median,

crossed over to the opposite lane and dashed against the Tata Indigo

car. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and

died on the spot.

4. At the time of accident, the deceased was stated to be aged

about 45 years, hale and healthy, employed as Senior Zonal Manager in

Coromandel International Limited, Bangalore, earning Rs.15,00,000/-

3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) per annum and paying Rs.6,730/- (Rupees

Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty only) per month as income

tax. The wife, daughter and mother of the deceased, claiming to be

dependants, filed M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2017 under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking a total compensation of Rs.

2,60,00,000/-, (Rupees Two Crores and Sixty Lakhs only) towards loss

of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, and other

conventional heads.

5. The first respondent before the learned Tribunal, namely, the

driver of the Corporation bus, did not contest the proceedings and was

set ex parte. The second respondent before the learned Tribunal,

namely, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (hereinafter

referred to as “the Corporation”), contested the claim petition.

Pleadings before the tribunal:

6. In the counter filed by the Corporation, it was contended that

the petition was not maintainable in law or on facts and that the

petitioners were not entitled to any compensation from the Corporation.

The Corporation denied the age, income, occupation of the deceased,

4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

dependency of the petitioners and the nature of the accident as pleaded

in the claim petition, and put the petitioners to strict proof of each and

every allegation.

7. It was the specific plea of the Corporation that while the bus

bearing No.TN-29-N-1892 was proceeding from Hosur to Krishnagiri

near Samalpallam Koot Road, a travels bus, in a rash manner,

attempted to overtake and hit the front left side of the Corporation bus,

causing the driver to get unnerved and the bus to run over the centre

median and then collide with the car coming from the opposite

direction. It was further pleaded that if the driver of the car bearing

No.KA-04-ME-9145 had turned slightly towards the left side of the road,

the accident could have been averted and hence the accident was due to

the negligence of the driver of the travels bus and the driver of the car

and not due to the negligence of the Corporation bus driver. The

Corporation also contended that driver, owner and insurer of the Tata

Indigo car and the travels bus were necessary parties and non-

impleadment rendered the claim petition bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties.

5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

8. As regards quantum, the Corporation contended that the claim

of Rs.2,60,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Sixty Lakhs only) was

highly exaggerated, arbitrary and unsustainable and that the

petitioners had not produced sufficient documentary evidence to

substantiate the alleged annual income of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees

Fifteen Lakhs only) or the payment of income tax. It was also pleaded

that the FIR was wrongly registered against the Corporation bus driver

and that mere registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet would not be

conclusive of negligence.

9. During the pendency of the claim petition, the third petitioner,

namely, the mother of the deceased, Thayarammal, died on 12.09.2019.

Her daughter Hemalatha sought to come on record as legal heir and

claimed her mother’s share of the compensation on the basis of a

registered Will dated 04.12.2013. Initially, the learned Tribunal

dismissed I.A.No.172 of 2018 filed by Hemalatha, but in CRP(MD) No.

1076 of 2021, this Court set aside the dismissal and directed that she

be impleaded as a party in the claim petition, leaving open the question

of her entitlement to be decided at trial.

6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

10. To substantiate their claim, the first petitioner was examined

as P.W.1. She reiterated the averments in the claim petition regarding

the manner of accident, negligence of the bus driver, age and income of

the deceased and the extent of loss suffered by the family. She marked

Exhibits P1 to P10. On the side of the petitioners, P.W.2, an authorised

official from Coromandel International Limited, was examined to speak

about the employment and salary particulars of the deceased, and

Exhibits P14 to P16 were marked through him. Exhibits P11 to P13

were marked on consent.

11. On the side of the Corporation, the bus driver was examined

as R.W.1. He supported the version that a travel bus had hit the

Corporation bus and that he was not negligent. No documents were

marked through him. The impleaded fourth respondent, Hemalatha,

was examined as R.W.2 and Exhibits R1 to R3, including the Will, were

marked through her.

Findings of the learned Tribunal:

12. On a consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, the learned Tribunal framed the following points for

7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

consideration:

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of bus bearing Reg.No.TN-29-N-1892?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation; if so,

what is the quantum and from whom?

(iii) Whether the fourth respondent (impleaded legatee) is entitled

to the share of the deceased third petitioner? and

(iv) To what other reliefs?

13. As regards negligence, the learned Tribunal took note of Ex.P1

(FIR), registered on the complaint of the Village Administrative Officer of

Immittinaickenpalli Village, which clearly recorded that the bus

belonging to the Corporation, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit

the centre median, crossed over to the opposite lane and dashed against

the car. Ex.P3 (Inquest Report) and Ex.P5 (Charge Sheet) were also

relied on, in which the Investigating Officer had categorically opined

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

Corporation bus driver. The learned Tribunal found that there was no

reference in any of these contemporaneous documents to the alleged

involvement of a travels bus as claimed by the Corporation.

8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

14. The learned Tribunal recorded that P.W.1 was not an

eyewitness to the accident and hence her testimony on the manner of

accident was based on hearsay; however, the learned Tribunal rightly

held that the FIR, Inquest Report and Charge Sheet, being

contemporaneous official documents, could be relied upon as strong

corroborative material. The learned Tribunal also noted that though the

Corporation had pleaded the involvement of a travels bus, it did not

examine any independent witness nor produce any documentary

evidence to substantiate that plea. Therefore, it held that the accident

had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the Corporation bus.

15. As regards age and avocation, the learned Tribunal relied

upon Ex.P6 (Higher Secondary Course Mark Sheet), which disclosed the

date of birth of the deceased as 28.11.1966. On that basis, it held that

the deceased was 43 years, 4 months and 6 days old as on the date of

accident, i.e., 05.04.2010, and fixed the age as 43 years. This finding

was recorded in preference to the age of 45 years stated in the claim

petition.

9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

16. With respect to income, the learned Tribunal relied on Ex.P8

(salary slip for March 2010) and the testimony of P.W.2, the official from

Coromandel International Limited, and held that the deceased was

earning Rs.77,690/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand Six Hundred and

Ninety only) per month as net pay. Though the Corporation contended

that no salary slips for other months and no prior year Income Tax

Returns were produced, the learned Tribunal held that Ex.P8 salary slip

and Form-16 coupled with oral evidence constituted sufficient proof of

income for the purpose of determining loss of dependency.

17. Having fixed the monthly income at Rs.77,690/- (Rupees

Seventy Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety only), the learned

Tribunal applied the principles laid down in National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others

1

, and determined the annual income,

added future prospects and applied the appropriate multiplier as under:

Since the monthly income was Rs.77,690/- (Rupees Seventy

Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety only), the annual income

would become Rs.77,690 x 12 = Rs.9,32,280/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs

Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty only). Addition of 30%

towards future prospects (as the deceased was a permanent employee

1(2017) 6 SCC 680

10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

aged below 50): Rs.2,79,684/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Nine

Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Four only). Hence, the total annual

income including future prospects: Rs.12,11,964/- (Rupees Twelve

Lakhs Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Four only)

18. Since there were three dependants at the time of accident, the

Tribunal deducted 1/3

rd

towards personal and living expenses of the

deceased, namely, 1/3

rd

deduction: Rs.12,11,964 ÷ 3 = Rs.4,03,988/-

Contribution to family: Rs.12,11,964 – Rs.4,03,988 = Rs.

8,07,976/-

For the age of 43 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier “14”

as per Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

2

and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others

3

, and

arrived at the loss of dependency as Rs.8,07,976 x 14 = Rs.

1,13,11,664/-

19. The learned Tribunal then awarded conventional amounts

under the following heads and arrived at the total compensation as

under, in tabulated form:

2(2009) 6 SCC 121

3(2017) 6 SCC 680

11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

S.No.Description Amount awarded by

the Tribunal

Rs.

1. Loss of DependencyRs.1,13,11,664/-

2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/-

3. Tranport ExpensesRs. 10,000/-

4. Consortium to the

1

st

claimant

Rs. 50,000/-

TotalRs.1,13,81,664/-

20. The learned Tribunal held that the petitioners were entitled to

a total compensation of Rs.1,13,81,664/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen

Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Four only) with

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

deposit, together with costs. On liability, the learned Tribunal held that

the bus involved in the accident belonged to the Corporation, that the

driver was in the course of employment, and therefore, the Corporation

was vicariously liable to satisfy the award.

21. As regards the claim of the fourth respondent, Hemalatha, the

learned Tribunal noted the directions issued by this Court in CRP(MD)

12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

No.1076 of 2021, dated 04.01.2022, especially the operative portion

that if the Court holds that the mother (Thayarammal) was entitled to a

share in the compensation, then the share would automatically go to

the legatee under the Will. Holding that the mother of the deceased was

a legal heir and entitled to a share in the award, the learned Tribunal

held that her share had to be paid to Hemalatha based on the Will.

22. Accordingly, the Tribunal apportioned the award as follows:

(i) 1

st

petitioner (wife): Rs.53,31,664/- + Rs.50,000/- (consortium)

= Rs.53,81,664/-

(ii) 2

nd

petitioner (daughter): Rs.50,00,000/-

(iii) 3

rd

petitioner (mother) : Rs.10,00,000/-, to be paid to fourth

respondent (Hemalatha) as legatee under Will dated 04.12.2013 and

issued directions regarding mode of deposit and withdrawal, including

fixed deposit directions.

Grounds of appeal:

23. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the Corporation

has, inter alia, contended that the judgment and decree of the Tribunal

13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The

learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of a travels/Omni bus which hit the front

left side of the Corporation bus, resulting in loss of control, and hence

negligence ought not to have been fixed solely on the driver of the

Corporation bus and contributory negligence ought to have been

apportioned.

24. The learned Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly net income of

the deceased at Rs.77,690/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand Six

Hundred and Ninety only) solely on the basis of one pay slip for March

2010, without any material as to his income in other months or in

earlier years. The learned Tribunal failed to consider that the basic pay

was only Rs.26,985/- and that the special allowance was Rs.55,585/-

and that P.W.2 admitted in cross-examination that she did not know

the salary of the deceased for other months, thereby rendering the proof

of annual income inadequate.

25. The Tribunal improperly relied on Form-16 for the assessment

year 2010–2011, which was issued after the accident, and the

14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

petitioners did not file earlier Income Tax Returns to prove the real

income of the deceased. There was inconsistency with regard to the age

of the deceased, as the claim petition mentioned the age as 45 years,

whereas the Tribunal fixed the age at 43 years based on school

certificate. During the pendency of M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2017, the mother

of the deceased died. The impleadment petition in I.A.No.172 of 2018

filed by the fifth respondent (present fourth respondent) and the

subsequent CRP(MD) No.1076 of 2021 caused substantial delay, but

the Corporation was nevertheless fastened with interest for the entire

period. Hence, the interest for the period consumed in the CRP

proceedings ought to have been waived.

26. Despite the plea of involvement of a travels bus and

contributory negligence, the petitioners did not take steps to implead

the travels bus and its insurer, as well as the driver, owner and insurer

of the car, which was fatal to the claim. The appellant reserved its right

to raise additional grounds, if necessary.

Submissions:

27. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

appellant-Corporation reiterated the above grounds and contended that

the learned Tribunal erred in ignoring the plea of contributory

negligence and non-joinder of necessary parties; that no acceptable

proof of real annual income was placed; that the learned Tribunal

simply accepted the pay slip for one month and Form-16 filed after the

accident; that the fixation of age and income were both flawed; and that

the award of interest for the entire period, including the period

consumed by the proceedings in CRP(MD) No.1076 of 2021, was unjust

and liable to be interfered with.

28. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first and second

respondents/claimants supported the award and submitted that the

learned Tribunal had correctly relied on FIR, Inquest Report and Charge

Sheet, all of which consistently fixed negligence on the Corporation bus

driver; that the Corporation had not produced any material to

substantiate the involvement of a travels bus; that the income and age

were correctly determined on the basis of documentary evidence and

employer’s testimony; that the quantum was strictly in tune with the

guidelines laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

and others

4

and Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport

4(2017) 6 SCC 680

16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

Corporation

5

, and that there was no ground whatsoever to interfere

with the award or with the award of interest.

29. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent adopted the

submissions of the learned counsel for the claimants insofar as

entitlement to the share of compensation is concerned and drew

attention to this Court’s order in CRP(MD) No.1076 of 2021,

emphasising that the learned Tribunal has only given effect to the

directions contained therein.

Points for consideration:

30. In the light of the rival submissions and materials, the

following points arise for consideration in this appeal:

(i) Whether the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident

occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Corporation

bus driver calls for interference?

(ii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in determining the

age and income of the deceased and in computing the compensation as

tabulated in paragraph (20) supra?

5(2009) 6 SCC 121

17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

(iii) Whether the appellant-Corporation is entitled to waiver of

interest for any specific period on the ground of alleged delay caused by

CRP(MD) No.1076 of 2021?

(iv) Whether the direction of the learned Tribunal recognising the

entitlement of the fourth respondent (Hemalatha) to the share of the

deceased third petitioner requires interference?

(v) To what relief the appellant is entitled?

Analysis:

31. As noted by the learned Tribunal, P.W.1 is admittedly not an

eyewitness to the accident. The case regarding the manner of accident

and negligence has, therefore, been established primarily on the basis of

documentary evidence. Ex.P1 (FIR) is based on the complaint lodged by

the Village Administrative Officer, a neutral public official. The contents

of Ex.P1 clearly narrate that the Corporation bus was driven in a rash

and negligent manner, hit the central median, went across the road and

collided head-on with the Tata Indigo car.

32. Ex.P3 (Inquest Report) prepared by the Investigating Officer in

18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

the presence of Panchayatdars and Ex.P5 (Charge Sheet) also attribute

the cause of the accident to the rash and negligent driving of the driver

of the Corporation bus alone. There is absolutely no reference in these

contemporaneous documents to the involvement of a travels bus in the

manner now pleaded by the Corporation.

33. R.W.1, the bus driver, in his oral evidence, attempted to

introduce the theory that a travels bus, while overtaking, had hit the

front left side of the Corporation bus, which allegedly caused the bus to

lose control and cross the median. However, this plea is unsupported by

any complaint lodged at the relevant point of time or any independent

eyewitness testimony or any investigation record. No effort was made to

produce the alleged travels bus driver or any other corroborative

evidence.

34. It is a settled principle that in a claim petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the standard of proof is that of

preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Contemporaneous police records like FIR, inquest and charge sheet are

relevant and can be relied upon unless discredited. In the present case,

19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

there is nothing on record to discredit Exs.P1, P3 and P5. On the

contrary, they are internally consistent and corroborative.

35. In the absence of any convincing contrary material from the

Corporation, we find no perversity or infirmity in the conclusion of the

learned Tribunal that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.TN-29-N-1892

belonging to the appellant-Corporation. The plea of contributory

negligence and involvement of a travels bus is clearly an afterthought

and cannot be accepted.

36. Accordingly, Point (i) is answered against the appellant.

37. As regards age, Ex.P6 (Higher Secondary Certificate) is a

primary document showing the date of birth of the deceased as

28.11.1966. The learned Tribunal has rightly calculated that as on the

date of accident, 05.04.2010, the deceased was 43 years, 4 months and

6 days old and fixed the age as 43 years. The mere mention of 45 years

in the claim petition is only a pleading discrepancy and cannot override

a clear documentary proof. We find no reason to disturb this finding.

20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

38. As regards income, Ex.P8 (salary slip for March 2010) shows

that the deceased received Rs.77,690/- as net pay for the said month.

P.W.2, an authorised officer from Coromandel International Limited,

has deposed in support of this salary slip. Though the Corporation

contends that salary slips for other months, previous year Income Tax

Returns, etc., were not produced, the salary slip for the month

immediately preceding the accident, coupled with the employer’s oral

evidence and Form-16, is sufficient to determine monthly income in a

claim proceeding, where mathematical precision is not insisted upon.

39. The contention that the basic pay was only Rs.26,985/- and

the balance was “special allowance” does not by itself disqualify the

entire amount from being treated as income for the purpose of

computation of loss of dependency. The question in such cases is what

the deceased was actually earning and contributing to the family at the

time of death, not how the components of salary are labelled.

40. The learned Tribunal has thereafter strictly followed the

principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others

6

and Sarla Verma

6(2017) 6 SCC 680

21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

7

in adding 30% towards

future prospects for a permanent employee aged below 50, deducting

1/3rd towards personal expenses for three dependents, and applying

the multiplier “14” for the age group of 41–45. The Tribunal has then

prepared the computation in a clear tabular form, reproduced in

paragraph (20) supra, and awarded the total compensation accordingly.

41. On a careful scrutiny of the tabulation, we find that the

determination of loss of dependency at Rs.1,13,11,664/- (Rupees One

Crore Thirteen Lakhs Eleven Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Four

only) and the addition of conventional sums under funeral expenses,

transport expenses and consortium, culminating in a total of Rs.

1,13,81,664/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lakhs Eighty One Thousand

Six Hundred and Sixty Four only), is entirely in consonance with the

settled law and is neither excessive nor arbitrary. We, therefore, confirm

the tabulated computation of the learned Tribunal.

42. Accordingly, Point (ii) is answered against the appellant and in

favour of the claimants.

7(2009) 6 SCC 121

22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

43. The appellant contends that because of the proceedings in

I.A.No.172 of 2018 and CRP(MD) No.1076 of 2021, there was delay in

disposal of the claim petition and hence the interest for that period

ought to have been waived. We are unable to accept this contention.

The proceedings for impleadment of a legal heir/legatee are part and

parcel of the due adjudicatory process. That process cannot be treated

as a delay attributable to the claimants so as to deprive them of interest

on the compensation for the relevant period.

44. The award of interest is compensatory in nature and is

intended to recompense the claimants for the denial of use of the

amount from the date of claim. In the absence of any specific direction

by this Court in the earlier CRP proceedings limiting interest for any

particular period, the Tribunal has rightly awarded interest at 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. We find no illegality

in this.

45. Accordingly, Point (iii) is answered against the appellant.

46. In CRP(MD) No.1076 of 2021, this Court has clearly observed

23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

that the present fourth respondent sought impleadment not as a

dependent but as a legatee of the deceased third petitioner and further

directed that her right to receive compensation, if any, would depend

upon the learned Tribunal’s finding as to whether the deceased mother

was entitled to a share and the validity and effect of the Will executed in

her favour.

47. It is not in dispute that the mother of the deceased,

Thayarammal, was a legal heir and entitled to a share in the

compensation as a dependant parent. In view of the registered Will

dated 04.12.2013 (Ex.R1) executed by Thayarammal, bequeathing her

share in the claim amount to her daughter, Hemalatha, and in the light

of the directions of this Court in CRP(MD) No.1076 of 2021, the

Tribunal has rightly held that the share of the deceased third petitioner

shall be paid to the fourth respondent. We find no ground to interfere

with this part of the order.

48. Accordingly, Point (iv) is answered in favour of the fourth

respondent and against the appellant.

24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

49. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the

same is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 05.03.2024 made in

M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2017 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Palani, Dindigul

District, including the tabulated assessment of compensation and

apportionment, are confirmed in toto.

50. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the

entire award amount of Rs.1,13,81,664/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen

Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Four only) with

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

date of deposit and with proportionate costs, after deducting the

amount, if any, already deposited, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.227 of

2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional

District and Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Palani, within a period of eight

(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

51. On such deposit, the claimants and the fourth respondent

shall be entitled to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by

the learned Tribunal, subject to the conditions and fixed deposit

25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

directions imposed by the learned Tribunal, which are left undisturbed.

If any amount has already been deposited and withdrawn, the same

shall be duly accounted for and adjusted. There shall be no order as to

costs in this appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

52. In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

dismissed.

[P.V.,J.] [L.V.G.,J.]

02.01.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes

Sml

To

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Additional District and Sessions

(Fast Track) Court,

Palani, Dindigul District.

Copy to

The Section Officer,

Vernacular Records,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

P.VELMURUGAN, J.,

AND

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.,

Sml

C.M.A.(MD)No.709 of 2024

02.01.2026

27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis