Madras High Court
S.Indhu Rani vs Mrs.A.Jayakodi on 27 January, 2026
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
2026:MHC:487
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A. NOS.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 OF 2023
AND
C.M.P. NOS.4094, 17717, 17771, 18233, 21035, 21036,
24017, 24021, 24092, 24099, 24101 OF 2023 & 21867 OF 2024
C.M.A.NO.409 OF 2023
1.S.Indhu Rani,
W/o.Late R.Sivashankar
2.Master Naveen Raj Kumar,
[2nd minor petitioner is represented
by his mother and natural guardian
- Mrs.S.Indhu Rani, the 1st petitioner
herein]
Both are residing at
No.4, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
1st Main Road, Nerkundram,
Ambattur, Tiruvallur,
Tamil Nadu – 600 107. ... Appellants /
Petitioners
Versus
1.Mrs.A.Jayakodi
Old No.29/1, New No.188,
Kalyana Sundaram Nagar,
Karumandapam, Trichy District,
Tamil Nadu – 620 001.
Page No.1 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
2.National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office – II,
No.127, Aruvi Block First Floor,
St. Paul Complex, Bharthiyar Salai,
Thiruchirapalli – 620 001. … Respondents /
Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to allow the appeal and enhance the
compensation awarded vide the Fair and Decretal Order dated September
03, 2022 passed in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents
Claims Petitions) Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan
For Respondent-1 : No appearance
For Respondent-2 : Mrs.N.B.Surekha
C.M.A.NO.1813 OF 2023
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office – II,
No.127, Aruvi Block, First Floor,
St. Pauls Complex, Bharathiyar Salai,
Thiruchirapalli – 620 001. ... Appellant /
2nd Respondent
Versus
1.D.Raja Chinna Pandian,
S/o.Late Duraipandian,
Old No.35, New No.36,
Chellaiah Street, Sengottaih.
Page No.2 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
2.S.Indhurani
W/o.Late Sivashankar
No.4, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
1st Main Road, Nerkundram,
Ambattur, Tiruvallur,
Tamil Nadu – 600 107.
3.Mrs.Amudha,
W/o.Jayachandran,
D/o.Late Duraipandian,
Old No.35, New No.36,
Chellaiah Street, Sengottaih. … Respondents 1-3/
Petitioners 1-3
4.Mrs.Jayakodi
Old No.29/1, New No.188,
Kalyanasundaram Nagar,
Karumandapam,
Trichy District,
Tamilnadu – 620 001. … 4th Respondent /
1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order
dated September 03, 2022 passed in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5674 of 2014 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1,
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mrs.N.B.Surekha
For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan
For Respondent-4 : No appearance
Page No.3 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
C.M.A.NO.1823 OF 2023
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office – II,
No.127, Aruvi Block, First Floor,
St. Pauls Complex, Bharathiyar Salai,
Thiruchirapalli – 620 001. ... Appellant /
2nd Respondent
Versus
1.Rama Raja Pandian,
S/o.Thangadurai Pandian
2.R.Sivakumar,
S/o.Rama Raja Pandian
3.Chitra Alias Chinna Duraichi,
W/o.P.Sivakumar
4.S.Indhurani,
W/o.Late Sivashankar
5.Master Naveen Raj Kumar,
S/o.Late Sivashankar
5th Respondent Minor represented by his
mother – Indhurani, the 4th respondent herein
as next friend and natural guardian,
All are residing at
No.4, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
1st Main Road, Nerkundram,
Ambattur, Tiruvallur,
Tamilnadu – 600 107. … Respondents 1-5/
Petitioners 1-5
6.Mrs.Jayakodi,
Old No.29/1, New No.188,
Kalyanasundaram Nagar,
Karumandapam,
Trichy District,
Tamilnadu – 620 001. … 6th Respondent /
1st Respondent
Page No.4 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order
dated September 03, 2022 passed in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5446 of 2014 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1,
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mrs.N.B.Surekha
For Respondents-1 to 5 : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan
For Respondent-6 : No appearance
C.M.A.NO.1867 OF 2023
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office – II,
No.127, Aruvi Block, First Floor,
St. Pauls Complex, Bharathiyar Salai,
Thiruchirapalli – 620 001. ... Appellant /
2nd Respondent
Versus
1.S.Indhurani,
W/o.Late Sivashankar
2.Master Naveen Raj Kumar,
S/o.Late Sivashankar,
Represented by his mother and
natural guardian – Mrs.Indhurani,
the 1st respondent herein
Residing at
No.4, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
1st Main Road, Nerkundram,
Ambattur, Tiruvallur,
Tamilnadu – 600 107. … Respondents1-2/
Petitioners 1-2
Page No.5 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
3.Mrs.Jayakodi,
Old No.29/1, New No.188,
Kalyanasundaram Nagar,
Karumandapam,
Trichy District,
Tamilnadu – 620 001. … 3rd Respondent /
1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order
dated September 03, 2022 passed in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2014 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1,
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mrs.N.B.Surekha
For Respondents-1 & 2 : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan
For Respondent-3 : No appearance
C.M.A.NO.2183 OF 2023
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office – II,
No.127, Aruvi Block, First Floor,
St. Pauls Complex,
Bharathiyar Salai,
Thiruchirapalli – 620 001. ... Appellant /
2nd Respondent
Versus
1.D.Raja Chinna Pandian,
S/o.Late Duraipandian,
Old No.35, New No.36,
Chellaiah Street, Sengottai.
Page No.6 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
2.S.Indhurani,
W/o.Late Sivashankar,
No.4, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
1st Main Road, Nerkundram,
Ambattur, Tiruvallur,
Tamilnadu - 600 107.
3.Mrs.Amudha,
W/o.Jayachandran,
D/o.Late Duraipandian,
Old No.35, New No.36,
Chellaiah Street, Sengottai. … Respondents 1-3/
Petitioners 1-3
4.Mrs.Jayakodi,
Old No.29/1, New No.188,
Kalyanasundaram Nagar,
Karumandapam,
Trichy District,
Tamilnadu - 620 001. … 4th Respondent /
1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order
dated September 03, 2022 passed in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5673 of 2014 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1,
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mrs.N.B.Surekha
For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan
For Respondent-4 : No appearance
C.M.A.NO.2185 OF 2023
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office – II,
Page No.7 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
No.127, Aruvi Block, First Floor,
St. Pauls Complex,
Bharathiyar Salai,
Thiruchirapalli – 620 001. ... Appellant /
2nd Respondent
Versus
1.S.Indhurani,
W/o.Late Sivashankar,
No.4, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
1st Main Road, Nerkundram,
Ambattur, Tiruvallur,
Tamilnadu – 600 107. … 1st Respondent /
Petitioner
2.Mrs.Jayakodi
Old No.29/1, New No.188,
Kalyanasundaram Nagar,
Karumandapam,
Trichy District,
Tamil Nadu – 620 001. … 2nd Respondent /
1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order
dated September 03, 2022 passed in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5445 of 2014 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1,
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mrs.N.B.Surekha
For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan
For Respondent-2 : No appearance
Page No.8 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.Sakthivel, J.) Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded vide Common Award dated September 3, 2022 passed in M.A.C.T. O.P. Nos.5445, 5446, 5447, 5673 and 5674 of 2014 by 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petitions) Small Causes Court, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short], the petitioners in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2017 have preferred C.M.A. No.409 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation, while the second respondent therein / Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A. Nos.1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 and 2185 of 2023 praying to set aside the Common Award in respect of all the Motor Accidents Claims Original Petitions.
2. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of one and the same Common Award, which was passed in a batch of Original Petitions arising out of the same accident. The Respondents in all the Original Petitions are the same. The facts and issues involved are intertwined to the extent of manner of accident, negligence and liability. Hence, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals will be disposed of by this Common Judgment. Page No.9 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in their respective Original Petitions. PETITIONERS’ CASE
4. According to the petitioners in all the Original Petitions, on February 14, 2014 at about 06:00 a.m., a Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration No.TN-02-AF-4420 was proceeding from Sengottai to Chennai, towards North, on Trichy - Chennai National Highway (NH-45). Gomu Duraichi, R.Sivashankar, Janaki, Duraipandian, S.Indhurani were travelling in the said car. When the car was nearing Venganur Village, the first respondent's Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-BB-6129, suddenly entered the carriage way from the left side of the Highway in a rash and negligent manner, and came right in front of the car. Consequently, the car collided with the rear end of the first respondent's Lorry. As a result of the collision, Gomu Duraichi, R.Sivashankar, Janaki and Duraipandian passed away, while S.Indhurani sustained grievous injuries. In connection with the said accident, First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.40 of 2014 was registered on the file of the Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the driver of the first respondent's Lorry. The accident occurred solely due to Page No.10 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 the rash and negligence of the driver of the first respondent's Lorry and hence, the respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the said Lorry respectively are jointly liable to compensate the petitioners.
5. M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5445 of 2014 came to filed by the injured - Indhrani seeking a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the aforesaid accident.
6. M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5446 of 2014 came to be filed by the dependents of the deceased - Gomu Duraichi seeking a compensation of Rs.10,25,000/- for her demise.
7. M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2014 came to filed by the dependents of the deceased - R.Sivashankar, namely wife-S.Indhurani and son-Master Naveen Raj Kumar, seeking a compensation of Rs.2,20,00,000/- for his demise. It is the specific case of the petitioners in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2014 that at the time of the accident, the deceased - R.Sivashankar, was aged 34 years and was working as a Deputy Manager in Renault Nissan Technology and Business Centre India Private Ltd., earning a monthly income of Rs.93,847/-.
Page No.11 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
8. M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 5673 of 2014 came to filed by the dependents of the deceased - Janaki seeking a compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- for her demise.
9. M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5674 of 2014 came to filed by the dependents of the deceased - Duraipandian seeking a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for his demise.
FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE
10. Though the first respondent remained absent and was set ex-parte by the Tribunal in M.A.C.T. O.P. Nos.5445, 5446, 5447 and 5673 of 2014, she filed a counter statement in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5674 of 2014 disputing the alleged manner of accident, the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent’s Lorry as well as the other petition averments. She admitted that her Lorry was insured with the second respondent / insurance company at the time of accident. According to her, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Toyota Car bearing Registration No.TN-02-AF-4220, in which the deceased persons and the injured were travelling. Stating so, the first respondent sought to dismiss the claim petition. Page No.12 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE
11. The second respondent / insurance company filed a counter statement disputing the alleged manner of accident and negligence on the part of the Driver of the first respondent's Lorry. The second respondent denied the involvement of the first respondent’s Lorry in the alleged accident and also denied the injuries sustained due to the alleged accident. Further, without prejudice to the aforesaid contention about the involvement of the Lorry, the second respondent contended that the driver of the Toyota Car is solely responsible for the accident. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent’s Lorry. Further, the second respondent denied the petition averments and contended that the petitioners are put to strict proof of same. Further, the alleged accident was not reported by the first respondent to the second respondent and the documents like Lorry policy copy, driving license of the Driver, etc., were not produced. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. Further, the compensation claimed under various heads are excessive and exorbitant. On these grounds, the second respondent prays to dismiss all the Claim Petitions.
Page No.13 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 TRIBUNAL
12. Before the Tribunal, a Joint Trial Memo was filed and recorded. Accordingly, a joint trial was conducted and evidence was recorded in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5445 of 2014 commonly to dispose of all the five claims, since all the cases are arising out of the same accident.
13. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, the petitioner in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5445 of 2014 - S.Indhurani was examined as P.W.1 and one Ramasundaram, Human Resource Manager at Renault Nissan Technology and Business Centre India Private Ltd., was examined as P.W.2. The exhibits marked are as tabulated below:
M.A.C.T. O.P. No. Exhibits
5445 of 2014 Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.8
5446 of 2014 Ex-P.9 to Ex-P.13
5447 of 2014 Ex-P.14 to Ex-P.22
5673 of 2014 Ex-P.23 to Ex-P.27
5674 of 2014 Ex-P.28 to Ex-P.37
14. On the side of the second respondent, the driver of the first respondent’s Lorry namely Mr.Jeganathan was examined as R.W.1 and one Mrs.Selvi, Senior Assistant, National Insurance Company Limited was examined as R.W.2 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.7 were marked. Page No.14 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
15. The Tribunal, upon a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, found that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the Lorry belonging to the first respondent. The Tribunal further found that the Lorry involved in the accident was duly insured with the second respondent- Insurance Company at the material point of time. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and awarded compensation, as tabulated hereunder:-
S.No M.A.C.T. O.P. No. Name of the Compensation Compensation petitioner/s claimed Awarded by the Tribunal 1 5445 / 2014 S.Indhurani Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.38,504/-
Rama Raja Pandian, R.Sivakumar, 2 5446 / 2014 Rs.10,25,000/- Rs.7,04,400/-
Chitra @ Chinna Duraichi, S.Indhurani, and Master Naveen Raj Kumar 3 5447 / 2014 S.Indhurani and Rs.2,20,00,000/- Rs.55,75,700/-
Master Naveen Raj Kumar D.Raja Chinna 4 5673 / 2014 Pandian, Rs.11,00,000/- Rs.11,90,000/-
S.Indhurani, and Mrs.Amudha 5 5674 / 2014 D.Raja Chinna Rs.20,00,000/- Rs.10,21,200/-
Pandian, S.Indhurani, and Mrs.Amudha Page No.15 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
16. The break-up figures of the compensation amount awarded in all the Original Petitions are as tabulated hereunder:
S. No. Head of Compensation Amount Awarded M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 5445 of 2014 1 Compensation for Rs.30,000/- the injuries sustained 2 Medical Bills Rs.8,504/- Total Rs.38,504/- M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 5446 of 2014 1 Loss of Dependency Rs.5,54,400/- 2 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/- 3 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 4 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.7,04,400/- M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 5447 of 2014 1 Loss of Dependency Rs.54,65,610/- 2 Loss of Consortium Rs.80,000/- 3 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 4 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.55,75,610/- M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 5673 of 2014 1 Loss of Dependency Rs.10,40,000/- 2 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/- 3 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 4 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.11,90,000/- Page No.16 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 5674 of 2014 1 Loss of Dependency Rs.8,71,200/-
2 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
3 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.10,21,200/-
17. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioners in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2014 have preferred C.M.A. No.409 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, challenging the Common Award, the second respondent / insurance company has preferred C.M.A. Nos.1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 and 2185 of 2023.
ARGUMENTS
18. Heard Mr.S.Thanka Sivan, learned Counsel appearing for the parties herein who are the petitioners before the Tribunal, and Ms.N.B.Surekha, learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company, which is the second respondent in all the Original Petitions before the Tribunal.
Page No.17 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
19. Mr.S.Thanka Sivan, learned Counsel submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent’s Lorry. Ex-P.1 - F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the first respondent’s Lorry. Further, S.Indhurani, one among the petitioners, was an occupant of the Car and an ocular witness to the accident as well. She examined herself as P.W.1. She has clearly deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the first respondent's Lorry driver. Her evidence corroborates the manner of accident as stated in the Original Petitions and as in the F.I.R. Further, no independent witness was examined on the side of the first respondent to substantiate their defence. Therefore, he would contend that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence.
19.1. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the Pay Slip of the deceased - R.Sivashankar in Ex-P.18, his Income Tax computation slip in Ex-P.19 and his Income Tax Returns Acknowledgement in Ex-P.20.
19.2. He would further submit that while computing the compensation, all allowances forming part of the regular income of the Page No.18 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 deceased, except conveyance allowance, food allowance and except other similar reimbursements, ought to have been taken into account. However, the Tribunal failed to include such allowances, which, according to the learned Counsel is an erroneous approach. Accordingly, the learned Counsel would pray to allow the appeal in C.M.A. No.409 of 2023, dismiss that in C.M.A. Nos.1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 and 2185 of 2023 and enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447of 2014. Further, the learned Counsel submits that due to the sudden demise of first petitioner’s husband – R.Sivashankar, the petitioners could not approach the Bank and get the bank statement of her husband. Now, she has obtained the bank statement which will be helpful for this Court to arrive a just compensation in this case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in CMP No.4094 of 2023 in CMA No.409 of 2023 and receive the additional document and mark the same on the side of the petitioners.
19.3.He further submits that in respect of Crime No.40 of 2024 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 121, 411 read with 477 of the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, Ramanatham Police completed their investigation and filed a charge sheet against the first respondent’s driver – Jeganathan. Accordingly, he prays to Page No.19 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 allow the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in CMP No.21867 of 2024 in CMA No.409 of 2023 and receive the additional document and mark the same on the side of the petitioners.
20. Per contra, Ms.N.B.Surekha, learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper manner. She contends that the accident occurred in National Highways, where heavy vehicles maintain a constant speed and therefore, the first respondent’s driver could not have driven the Lorry in a rash or negligent manner.
20.1. It is her further submission that the accident occurred in the manner deposed by the driver of the first respondent, who was examined as R.W.1. According to him, while proceeding from Trichy towards Chennai, at a distance of about 4 kilometres from the Thozhudhur Toll Gate, he heard a sudden noise from the rear side of the Lorry. When he stopped to inspect the rear portion, he found that a Toyota Innova car bearing Registration No.TN-02-AF-4420, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, had collided with the rear side of the Lorry leading to an accident. Hence, first respondent's driver cannot be held responsible. The driver of the Toyota Innova car alone is liable for the accident. Page No.20 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 20.2. Alternatively, without prejudice to the foregoing submissions, the learned Counsel submits that in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that the first respondent's driver had also contributed to the accident, this Court may proportionately fix contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and deduct appropriate sum from the compensation amount.
20.3. She would further submit that the Tribunal failed to deduct income tax in a proper manner while computing the compensation. Accordingly, the learned Counsel would pray to allow C.M.A. Nos.1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 and 2185 of 2023, dismiss C.M.A. No.409 of 2023 and set aside the Award passed by the Tribunal.
CMP No.4094 of 2023 in CMA No.409 of 2023
21. This Court has perused the affidavit filed in support of CMP No.4094 of 2023 in CMA No.409 of 2023. The first petitioner – S.Indhurani has stated that due to the sudden demise of her husband – Sivashankar, she could not approach the bank and get the statement of accounts of her deceased husband. Now she obtained the same. Accordingly, she prays to allow CMP No.4094 of 2023 in CMA No.409 of 2023.
Page No.21 of 38https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 21.1. This Court has satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow CMP No.4094 of 2023. Accordingly, CMP No.4094 of 2023 in CMA No.409 of 2023 is allowed and the Bank Statement for the period from January 2013 to November 2014 of the husband of the first petitioner is received and marked as Ex-P.38.
CMP No.21867 of 2024 in CMA No.409 of 2023
22. As far as CMP No.21867 of 2024 is concerned, the first respondent’s driver – Jeganathan was examined as R.W.1. He himself deposed that a Criminal Case was registered against him and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court. Hence, the additional document sought to be received vide CMP No.21867 of 2024 would not be helpful to decide the case. Moreover, already sufficient evidence is available on record to decide the negligence aspect. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in CMP No.21867 of 2024 in CMA No.409 of 2023 shall be closed.
Page No.22 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 DISCUSSION
23. This Court has considered both sides' submissions and perused the evidence available on record. The points that arise for consideration in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are as follows:
(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's Lorry ? Whether the driver of the Toyota Innova Car contributed to the accident in any manner ?
(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the Original Petitions are just, fair and reasonable ?
(iii) Whether the Award of the Tribunal is to be interfered with by this Court?
Point No.(i)
24. Case of the petitioners is that the driver of the first respondent’s Lorry, moved the Lorry from a late night / overnight restaurant and suddenly entered onto the Highway and came in the way of the Toyota Innova Car in which the deceased and the injured were travelling. As the Lorry suddenly came onto the path of the Toyota Car, the Car collided with the rear end of the Lorry, leading to the accident. Page No.23 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
25. While the factum of accident is admitted by the second respondent, the manner of accident is disputed by stating that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the Toyota Car. According to the second respondent, when the first respondent’s driver was driving his Lorry ahead of the Toyota Car in a careful manner, the driver of the Toyota Car attempted to over take the first respondent's Lorry rashly and negligently from its right side and collided with its back side.
26. In this case, Ex-P.1 - F.I.R. was registered on the same day of accident against the driver of the first respondent’s Lorry. Ex-R.7 - Rough Sketch prepared by Police would show that the accident occurred when the Lorry entered the Highways from a late night / over night eatery. Ex-R.2 - Motor Vehicle Inspection Report [M.V.I. Report] of the Lorry shows damage to the rear right side brake light assembly, rear right side spring assembly, propeller shaft, etc. Ex-R.3 - M.V.I. Report of the Toyota Car shows that the front bumper, bonnet, both side fenders, roof frame, all seats, radiator, condenser, engine assembly, front both side suspensions and dashboard were damaged and dislocated. Ex-R.2 - Lorry's M.V.I. Report shows that the Lorry sustained damage predominantly to its rear right side. On the other hand, it could be seen from bare perusal of Ex-R.3 - M.V.I. Report of the Toyota Car, that it suffered damages predominantly to front both sides / entire front region. Moreover, P.W.1 - S.Indhurani, who was an Page No.24 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 occupant of the Toyota Car at the time of accident and an ocular witness to the accident, has deposed along the lines of the claim petition in respect of the manner of accident. A conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W.1 - S.Indhurani and the documentary evidence in Ex-R.2, Ex-R.3 and Ex-R.7, would strongly establish the manner of accident as alleged by the petitioners in the claim petitions.
27. In order to prove the case of second respondent qua manner of accident, R.W.1 was examined. Though he admitted that charge sheet was filed against him in the criminal case, he deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the Toyota Car in overtaking the Lorry. He deposed in line with the manner of accident alleged by the second respondent. That apart, it is true that the driver of the Toyota Car, was not examined on either side. The petitioners could have examined the driver of the Toyota Car, who is a competent person to rebut the evidence of R.W.1. However, they failed to do so. Nonetheless, the preponderance of probabilities still lies in favour of the petitioners in view of the strong and cogent evidence of P.W.1, Ex-P.1, Ex-R.2, Ex-R.3 and Ex-R.7. Had the accident really occurred when the Toyota Car attempted to overtake the Lorry from the right side, ideally and most probably the Car would have suffered damages predominantly to its front left side. Page No.25 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 However, perusal of Ex-R.3 - M.V.I. Report of the Car would show that the car suffered damage to its entire front region. On the other hand, Ex-R.2 - Lorry's M.V.I. Report would show that the damages to the Lorry were mostly to its right side. This coupled with cogent and credible evidence of P.W.1 as well as Ex-P.1 - F.I.R. and Ex-R.7 - Rough Sketch, probablizes that the accident occurred when the Lorry abruptly slid onto the Highway from the left side and obstructed the Car travelling in the carriage way resulting in a rear end collision. Hence, this Court concludes that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the Lorry / R.W.1. The Tribunal rightly arrived at the said finding. Therefore, there is no warrant for this Court to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.
Point Nos.(ii) and (iii)
28. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5446 of 2014 for the demise of R.Sivashankar, at the time of the accident, the deceased - R.Sivashankar was aged 36 years. There is no dispute with regard to the same. Moreover, the same is corroborated by his Aadhar and PAN Card which are marked as Ex-P.16 and Ex-P.21 respectively.
Page No.26 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
29. The deceased - R.Sivashankar was said to be working as a Deputy Manager at Renault Nissan Technology and Business Centre India Private Limited at the time of accident. Mr.Ramasundaram, HR Manager of the said company was examined as P.W.2 and he marked Ex-P.35 - Letter declaring the revised gross salary of the deceased - R.Sivashankar with effect from April 1, 2013 as Rs.13,39,000/- per annum and Ex-P.36 - Pay Slip of the deceased - R.Sivashankar for the months of January and February 2014. The deceased - R.Sivashankar had joined the said company as early as in the year 2012 and was holding a permanent post. Further, on the side of the petitioners, Ex-P.18 - Pay Slips of the deceased - R.Sivashankar for the months of December 2013, January 2014 and February 2014, Ex-P.19 - Tax Computation Slip and Ex-P.20 - Certificate under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) were also marked. As per the aforesaid documents including Ex- P.36, the deceased - R.Sivashankar was earning a sum of Rs.93,847/- per month, including food coupon and conveyance allowance. It is a well settled law that the salary of an employee includes not only the basic pay but also all other attendant perks and allowances forming part of the regular income. However, the said principle is not without exceptions. Allowances such as food allowance and conveyance allowance and other similar payments, which are intended to meet the expenses that an Page No.27 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 employee would ordinarily incur in the course of employment, are not liable to be included while computing income for the purpose of determining compensation [See: National Insurance Company Limited
-vs- Indira Srivastava, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763 and Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited -vs- Radha Saiprasad, reported in 2021 (1) TN MAC 414 (DB)]. To put it differently, while computing compensation, the Tribunal is required to take into account all allowances forming part of the regular income, except those such as food coupon, conveyance allowance or travelling allowance, washing allowance or other allowances directly related to the performance of duties by the injured / deceased. In the present case, food coupon and conveyance allowance are the ones ordinarily incurred in the course of the deceased's employment and granted for performance of duties. Hence, after deducting the food coupon and conveyance allowance, the monthly income of the deceased works out to Rs.90,047/- [Rs.93,847/- (-) Rs.3,000/- (-) Rs.800/-].
30. The Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased - R.Sivashankar on the lower side. The Tribunal misread Ex-P.20 - Income Tax Certificate and concluded that the deceased - R.Sivashankar was earning Rs.4,21,037/- annually. A close reading of Ex-P.20 would clearly Page No.28 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 show that it pertains to the period between November 26, 2012 and March 31, 2013. If R.Sivashankar had earned Rs.4,21,037/- in roughly about four months, it probablizes the case of the petitioners that he was earning a monthly gross salary of about Rs.93,000/-The Tribunal is also not justifiable in inflating the significance of Ex-P.20, given the presence of other strong documentary evidence viz., Ex-P.18, Ex-P.19, Ex-P.35 and Ex-P.36 as well as the clear oral evidence of P.W.2. Further, the additional document now marked as Ex-P.8 – Bank statement of the deceased – R.Sivashankar would also prove that the deceased was receiving a sum of Rs.93,000/- as gross salary. At the same time, the Tribunal has also failed to properly deduct income tax and professional tax while computing the compensation under the head of loss of income / dependency.
31. As stated supra, as per the evidence available on record, the monthly salary of the deceased - R.Sivashankar, after deducting food coupon and conveyance allowance is Rs.90,047/-. He was working as a Deputy Manager in a reputed company as a permanent employee. It is stated that he has been working there as early as from 2012. His job appears to be a secure and permanent one. He was aged 36 years at the time of the accident. Evidence of P.W.2, who is the Human Resource Manager of the company in which the deceased - R.Sivashankar was Page No.29 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 working, fortifies the above facts. For these reasons, 50 % future prospects is required to be added in terms of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. With an addition of 50% towards future prospects, which amounts to Rs.45,024/-, the total monthly income would be Rs.1,35,071/-. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased - R.Sivashankar would be Rs.16,20,852/- (Rs.1,35,071/- X 12). After deducting professional tax of Rs.2,500/-, the annual dependency is Rs.16,18,352/-.
32. The accident occurred on February 14, 2014 and the corresponding Financial Year is 2012-2013 and the corresponding Assessment Year is 2013-2014. As per the income tax slabs applicable for the said assessment year, income tax payable on the annual income of Rs.16,18,352/- is Rs.3,15,506/-. In addition, 3% health and education cess is to be deducted which amounts to Rs.9,465/-. For the sake of convenience, income tax slabs for the relevant assessment year is given below:
Page No.30 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 Income Tax Slabs for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 Income Slabs Income Tax Rates Up to Rs. 2,00,000 Nil Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000 10% of the amount exceeding Rs.2,00,000/-
Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 10,00,000 Rs.30,000 + 20% of the amount exceeding Rs.5,00,000/-
Rs. 10,00,000 & above Rs.1,30,000 + 30% of the amount exceeding Rs.10,00,000/-
33. After deducting income and professional taxes, the annual income of the deceased - R.Sivashankar is Rs.12,93,381/-. From this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs.4,31,127/-. Deducting the said amount, his annual income would be Rs.8,62,254/-. Appropriate multiplier as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 is 15. Applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency would be Rs.8,62,254 /- X 15 = Rs.1,29,33,810/-.
34. The calculation under the head of loss of income / dependency can be tabulated as hereunder:
Page No.31 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 Compensation under the head of loss of income / dependency S.No. Description Amount
1. Monthly Salary after exclusion of food coupon Rs.90,047/-
and conveyance allowance
2. Add : Future Prospects (50%) Rs.45,024/-
3. Multiply by 12 : Annual Income Rs.16,20,852/-
4. Less : Professional Tax Rs.2,500/-
5. Less : Income Tax with Cess Rs.3,24,971/-
6. Less :1/3rd Personal Deduction Rs.4,31,127/-
7. Net Salary per annum Rs.8,62,254/-
8. Applying Multiplier of 15 Rs.1,29,33,795/-
Total Compensation under the head of loss of income / Rs.1,29,33,795/-
dependency
35. In all other aspects and heads, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Award of the Tribunal passed in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2014 for the demise of R.Sivashankar. Thus, the petitioners in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2014 are entitled to modified compensation of Rs.1,30,43,795/- as tabulated hereunder:
S. Head Compensation Compensation
No. Awarded by Awarded by this
the Tribunal Court
1. Loss of Income/ Dependency Rs.54,65,640/- Rs.1,29,33,795/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/- Rs.80,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.55,75,610/- Rs.1,30,43,795/-
Page No.32 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
36. As regards the other claim petitioners, this Court does not find any irregularity with the compensation awarded therein by the Tribunal, as discussed below.
37. In M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5445 of 2014 filed by the petitioner / injured - S.Indhurani, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident, based on Ex-R.1 - Wound Certificate which showed that the injuries were simple in nature and considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Further based on Ex- P.6 - Medical Bills, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,504/- towards medical expenses. The total compensation of Rs.38,504/- awarded in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5445 of 2014 appears to just and reasonable and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same.
38. As regards the other Original Petitions filed for the demise of Gomu Duraichi, Janaki and Duraipandian, in M.A.C.T. O.P. Nos.5446, 5673 and 5674 of 2014 respectively, no documentary evidence was let in to prove the alleged respective income. Hence, the Tribunal decided their income notionally and computed compensation. This Court finds the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency M.A.C.T. O.P. Nos.5446, 5673 and 5674 of 2014 just, fair and reasonable. Further, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation under towards loss of Page No.33 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses in those Original Petitions, all in tune with the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's Case [cited supra]. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same and is accordingly inclined to confirm the same. Point Nos.(ii) and
(iii) are answered accordingly.
CONCLUSION
39. As stated supra, the petitioners in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2014 filed for the demise of R.Sivashankar, are entitled to a modified compensation of Rs.1,30,43,795/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakh Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Five only). Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said modified Award amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1, Small Causes Court, Chennai, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. Apportionment shall be made in a manner proportionate to the apportionment made by the Tribunal. The minor's share shall be deposited as per the directions of the Tribunal. In all other aspects, the Award of the Tribunal shall hold good. Page No.34 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023
40. Resultantly,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition in CMP No.4094 of 2023 in CMA No.409 of 2023 is allowed. Additional document is received and marked as Ex-P.38.
(ii) C.M.A.No.409 of 2023 filed by the petitioners / claimants in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.5447 of 2014 is allowed in part with proportionate costs throughout, as detailed above.
(iii) C.M.A. Nos.1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 and 2185 of 2023 filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed.
(iv) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs in C.M.A. Nos.1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 and 2185 of 2023.
(iv) Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[N.S.K., J.] [R.S.V., J.]
27.01.2026
Page No.35 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )
C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE ORDER PASSED IN CMP NO.4094 OF 2023 IN CMA NO.409 OF 2023 S.No. Dated Exhibits Description of documents 1 - Ex-P.38 Bank Statement of R.Sivashankar for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2023 [N.S.K., J.] [R.S.V., J.] 27.01.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking Order : Yes / No TK To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, / Motor Accidents Claims Petitions) Small Causes Court, Chennai.
Page No.36 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 Page No.37 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm ) C.M.A. Nos.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 of 2023 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK 409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 OF 2023 C.M.A. NOS.409, 1813, 1823, 1867, 2183 & 2185 OF 2023 20 2 2 27.01.2026 Page No.38 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 07:57:17 pm )