Madras High Court

The Branch Manager vs M.Indirani on 25 April, 2025

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 25.04.2025

                                                           CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
                                                      AND
                                      THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

                                             C.M.A(MD)No.821 of 2024
                                                      and
                                        C.M.P(MD)Nos.9035 and 16212 of 2024


                 The Branch Manager,
                 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,
                 Swarnambigai Plaza,
                 S.F.No.6/5, Block No.7,
                 Omalur Main Road,
                 Selam – 636 009.                  ... Appellant/Second respondent


                                                                .Vs.

                 1.M.Indirani

                 2.M.Mohanapriyanka

                 3.M.Karnika

                 4.N.Periyammal

                 (Respondents 2 and 3 are declared as major and their
                 guardian, mother and the first respondent herein Indirani
                 was discharged from guardianship as per order of this

                 1/10




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:44:13 pm )
                 Court made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.10792 and 10795 of 2024
                 in C.M.A(MD)No.821 of 2021,dated 29.10.2024)
                                                         ... Respondents 1 to 4/Respondents
                                                                                  1 to 4

                 5.K.Rakkiyannan                                        ....5th Respondent/Ist Respondent


                 PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                 Vehicles Act against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.446 of 2021, dated 28.4.2023,
                 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge,
                 Karur.


                                  For Appellant                : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi

                                  For Respondents              : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
                                       1 to 4

                                  For Respondent-5             : No appearance


                                                        JUDGMENT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J AND R.POORNIMA.,J

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance

Compay being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:44:13 pm ) Tribunal, Karur in M.C.O.P.No.446 of 2021, dated 28.04.2023.

2.The claimants are the wife, two minor children and mother of the

deceased Munusami.Claiming that on 2.4.2021 when Munusami was driving his

lorry bearing Registration No.TN47 T 8590 along the National Highways of

Mannarkadu to Palakkadu at about 4.55 am., LPG Gas Tanker Lorry bearing

Registration No. TN 88 F 4134 driven by Rakkiannan insured with ICICI

Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Salem, hit the lorry driven by

Munusami rash and negligently causing the accident. In the said collusion,

Munusami got fire and died on the sopt. At the time of death, Munusami was

aged about 43 years old, earning his livelihood as a transport service provider

owning two lorry and as agriculturst owning 10 acres of punja land. He was

earning about 2 lakhs per month and therefore, the claimants being the wife, two

minor children and mother are entitled for a sum of Rs.65 lakhs as compensation.

3.The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the

accident had occurred due to the neglience on the part of the deceased Munsami.

He drove the vehicle in a high speed without control and dashed against the first

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:44:13 pm ) respondent lorry and therefore, he alone is responsible for the accident. The

Insurance Company which has indemnified the first respondent Gas Tanker Lorry

bearing Retistration No. TN 88 F 4134 is not liable to pay any compensation. It

was further pleaded that the deceased Munusami had no diriving licence at the

time of accident and had thus violated the Insurance Policy and the Motor

Vehicles Act and Rules by driving the motor vehicle without licence. An FIR

was registered by the jurisdictional Police was against Munusami, husband of the

first claimant, father of the claimants 2 and 3 and son of fourth claimant. After

investigation, final report was filed closing the case as abated, after ascertaining

the entire neglitence on the part of the deceased Munusami. .Regarding the

compensation claimed, it was stronly disputed by the Insurance Company that

there is no proof to show that the deceased was earning Rs.2 lakhs per month.

4.The Tribunal, on considering the claim made and the evidence of P.W.2

Sivathasan, driver by profession, had deposed that he witnessed the occurrence

while he was driving his vehicle and say that the driver of the Gas Tanker Lorry

drove his vehicle rash and negligently and hit the lorry driven by Munsami. He

informed about the accident to his owner.Though it was pointed out by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:44:13 pm ) learned Judge that the said witness is neither the informant to the accident nor

took the injured Munusami to the hospital and his evidence would show that he

was present near or at the place of accident.The Tribunal has believed the

evidence of P.W.2 and awarded compensation of Rs.39,83,000/- fixing Rs.

2,79,000/- as his annual income, based on the income tax return of the deceased

for the year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 which were marked as Ex.P19 and

Ex.P20. The RC Book for the two vehicles owned by the deceased Munsami

was taken into account as well as the property documents which were marked as

Ex.P6 to Ex.P8. After adding 25% towards future prosepcts and applying

multiplier of ‘14’, considering the fact that deceased fall under the age group of

41-45, compensation of Rs.39,83,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of

7.5% pa been awarded.

5.The Insurance Company has preferred the appeal, challenged the award

mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidenciary

value of Ex.P1-FIR registered by the Kalladikodu Police, Palakkadu District,

Kerala which has solely attributed the negligence on Munusami who has driven

his lorry bearing Registration No. TN 47 AT 8590 rash and negligently and hit

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:44:13 pm ) the Gas Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No. TN 88 F 4134.Though there is no

piece of evidence to believe that P.W.2 was present at the scene of occurrence

and further evidence to show that he is a native of Karur and known to the family

of the deceased.The Tribunal had believed his evidence contrary to the

documentary evidence registered after the accident.

6.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/Claimants would submit

that FIR marked as Ex.P1 cannot be taken as the gospel truth. Efforts should

have been taken by the appellant/ Insurance Company to prove the content of

the FIR by examing the Police Officer, who has registered the FIR and the Police

officer who has conducted the investigation and file the final report without

testing the veracity of the content found in the FIR attributing negligence on a

dead person which could not defend the allegation and which cannot be taken to

decide the eligible claim of the claimants without proof in the manner known to

law.

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

records.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:44:13 pm )

8.The accident has taken place in a National Highway on 02.4.2021.The

jurisdictional Police namely, Kallidikodu Police, Palakkadu District registered a

case in Crime No.58 of 2021 under Sections 279, 304(A) as against the deceased

Munusami. The law been well set into motion by one loganathan. The final

report is to the effect that attributing total negligence on the deceased Munusami.

FIR has been closed as abated. No doubt, summons taken to the Investigating

Officer without being served to the Investigating Officer, returned. Nonetheless,

the document namely, FIR and Closure Report cannot be simply ignored.

9.In a proceedings under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the

evidence of P.W.2 cannot be termed as a reliable eyewitness for the reason that

he has not produced any document to show that he was driving the lorry bearing

Registration No.TN 47 VV 1840 at the time of accident. The trip sheet of the

lorry would have shown whether the said vehicle pass through the scene of

accident. Contrarily, the FIR and the annexure to the FIR containing the report

of Fire Service Department of Kerala Governemnt show that it was an accident

occureed due to the contributory negligence of the deceased Munsami.Whileso,

the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:44:13 pm ) of the Gas Tanker Lorry driver, is without evidence. Therefore, this Court holds

that the deceased Munsami to be held responsible for contributing to the

accident to the tune of 30% and the award passed by the Tribunal is to be

reduced by 30% and the same be distributed among the claimants. Accordingly,

the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The award amount of Rs.

39,83,000/-is reduced to Rs.28 lakhs together with interest at the rate of 7.5%

p.a from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

10.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the minors have

already been declared as major. Therefore the award amount shall be distributed

in the following manner. Rs.4 lakhs to the fourth claimant/mother of the

deceased along with proportionate accrued interest and Rs.8 lakhs each to the

claimants 1 to 3 with proportionate accrued interest. It is stated that the appellant

Insurance Company has already deposited 75% of the award amount with