Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Rajeswari on 15 April, 2025
C.M.A.No.890 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.M.A.No.890 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.7267 of 2025
National Insurance Company Limited,
No. 910, Niresh Complex,
Cuddalore Main Road,
Attur Town and Talu,
Salem District ... Appellant
vs.
1.Rajeswari
2.Kumaresan
3.Roja
4.Sridhar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside decree and judgment passed in MACT
O.P.No.49 of 2020, dated 15.12.2023 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Attur.
For Appellant : M/s.Surekha N B
For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 04:20:54 pm )
C.M.A.No.890 of 2025
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Attur in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2020, dated
15.12.2023.
2. According to the respondents 1 to 3/claimants, the husband of the
1st claimant and father of the claimants 2 and 3 namely Srinivasan died in a
road accident that had occurred on 01.02.2020 involving the bus belonged
to the 4th respondent, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.
According to the claimants, the deceased, who was proceeding in a
Splendor Pro Bike bearing Registration No.TN-77-C-1319 halted his
vehicle and was speaking to his friend on the left hand side mud portion of
the road. At that point of time, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-77-C-
1444 belonged to the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant-
Insurance Company came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the deceased. As a result of the accident, he died. Therefore, a claim
petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 04:20:54 pm )
3. The 4th respondent-owner of the bus remained exparte before the
Tribunal and the claim petition was opposed by the insurer of the offending
vehicle on the ground that the accident had occurred only due to the
negligence on the part of the deceased and it was also claimed that there was
no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus insured with the appellant-
Insurance Company.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/1st claimant was examined
as PW.1 and an eye-witness was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the
claimants, 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. On behalf of the
Appellant-Insurance Company, Administrative Officer was examined as
RW.1 and 2 documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2.
5. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record, came to
the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on
the part of the driver of the bus insured with the appellant/Insurance
Company. The compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at
Rs.8,91,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant/Insurance
Company has come before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 04:20:54 pm )
6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance
Company would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus without considering the
evidence of RW.1. She further submitted that the notional income fixed by
the Tribunal is without any basis.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants
would submit that the Tribunal fixed negligence on the part of the driver of
the bus by proper appreciation of evidence available on record. He also
submitted that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is very meagre and
the same requires enhancement.
8. In order to prove the negligence, the 1st claimant was examined as
PW.1 and an eye-witness was examined as PW.2. The FIR was marked as
Ex.P1. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased and she was not an eye-witness,
therefore, her evidence is not useful to come to the conclusion with regard
to the negligence. PW.2 is the eye-witness to the accident. It is clearly stated
in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased was speaking
with PW.2. He clearly deposed about the negligence on the part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 04:20:54 pm )
driver of the bus. Ex.P1-FIR was also filed against the driver of the bus. In
these circumstances, based on evidence of PW.2, which was very well
corroborated by contents of FIR, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that
driver of the bus insured with the appellant was negligent in driving the
vehicle and the same resulted in accident. The said finding is based on
proper appreciation of evidence available on record and therefore, the same
is affirmed.
9. In the claim petition it was stated by the claimants that the
deceased was owning a tea shop and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month.
However, in order to prove the same, the claimants have not produced any
documentary evidence. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased,
which was fixed at 55 based on Ex.P3-Post Mortem Report fixed notional
income at Rs.7,500/-. Taking into consideration, the date of accident, the
notional income fixed by the Tribunal is very conservative one. In any
event, the claimants have not filed any cross appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 04:20:54 pm )
10. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly
granted 10% enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier
of 11. The Tribunal granted 10% enhancement towards conventional
damages. In the case on hand, the accident had occurred on 01.02.2020 very
well within three years from the date of delivery of judgment in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, (dated 31.10.2017). Therefore, strictly the claimants are
not entitled to 10% enhancement towards conventional damages. However,
taking into consideration that the Tribunal fixed very low amount as
notional income for the deceased, this Court is not inclined to set aside 10%
enhancement awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads.
Accordingly, the appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the
award passed by the Tribunal.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance
company submitted that the Tribunal granted 9% interest and the same
needs to be reduced. The accident had occurred in the year 2020, therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 04:20:54 pm )
taking into consideration the prevailing bank rate, this Court is inclined to
reduce the interest awarded by the Tribunal to 7.5%.
12. With this modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed by reducing the interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5%.
Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No
costs.
15.04.2025
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
dm
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 04:20:54 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
15.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 04:20:54 pm )
