Madras High Court
M/S. United India Insurance Company ... vs P. Padmavathy (Since Deceased) on 30 June, 2025
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 04.06.2025
Pronounced on 30.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and
C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited
No.52, General Muthiah Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079 …Appellant
Vs.
P. Padmavathy (since deceased)
1. M. Pushparaj
2. S.P. Dhandapani …Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act,1988, praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in
M.C.O.P. No.3419 of 2008 dated 13.12.2022 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K. Swaminathan
For Respondents : No Appearance
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment
passed in M.C.O.P. No.3419 of 2008 dated 13.12.2022 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes),
Chennai.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that
one Padmavathy (since deceased) filed a Claim Petition under Section
166/142 of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rule 3 of M.A.C.T Rules, claiming
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road
accident that took place on 30.04.2007. During the pendency of the petition,
the injured died and therefore the legal heir of the injured, namely, her
husband has been impleaded as the 1st petitioner.
2.1. The facts of the case are that on 30.04.2007, at about 15.30
hours, the said Padmavathy was walking from west to east direction near
Kannagi Statue bus stop and at that time, a motorcycle bearing Registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
No.TN 05 F 7591 came from south-north direction with great speed in a rash
and negligent manner hit against the said Padmavathy, in which she suffered
grievous injuries. Claiming that the rider of the motorcycle was solely
responsible for the accident and that since the said vehicle is insured with the
appellant /2nd respondent, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to her, the said Padmavathy filed the abovesaid claim petition.
2.2. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company contested
the claim petition. The owner of the vehicle contended that one Thangamani
has driven the vehicle at the time of accident and that the injured crossed the
road without noticing the signal and without using the subway and therefore
the alleged accident took place only due to the negligent act of the injured.
His further contention is that the compensation claimed by the injured is
excessive.
2.3 The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contended that the
injured suffered from pre existing diseases, which was later on clubbed with
the accident. Without producing the post-mortem report, the claimant has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
converted the injury case into fatal belatedly after ten years to get the benefit
of the legislation. He further submitted that during the pendency of the
proceedings, the claimant has not established that there is direct nexus
between the death of the deceased after ten years of the alleged accident
which took place on 10.04.2007 and in such circumstances the legal heir of
the deceased could claim only under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2.4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following points.
i. "Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the
rider of the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-05-F-7591?
ii. Whether the petitioner/claimant had sustained injuries due to the
accident?
iii. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner/claimant?
iv. Whether the petitioner/claimant is entitled for compensation? If so,
from whom and what is the quantum?
v. To what other relief the petitioner is entitled?"
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
2.5. The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence has
come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the negligent act of
the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 05 F 7591 and held
that the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.8,33,000/- with interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the
date of realisation to be paid by the second respondent excluding the period of
default.
3. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed by the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company.
4. Mr.K. Swaminathan, the counsel for the appellant submits that
the alleged accident took place on 30.04.2007. The FIR(Ex.P1) was
registered on 30.04.2006 which was dated prior to the alleged accident. But,
the Tribunal failed to appreciate this fact and has erroneously relied upon the
FIR for the alleged accident. His further contention is that in spite of the fact
that the claimant has not produced any document to show that he is the legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
heir of the deceased, the Tribunal has erroneously held that the claimant is the
legal heir of the deceased. It is further submitted that in the absence of any
documentary evidence for the treatment undergone by the deceased, the
Tribunal has allowed the petition clandestinely which requires interference by
this Court.
5. In spite of notice, there is no representation on the side of the
respondent.
6. It had been contended by the learned counsel for claimant/1st
respondent before the Tribunal that to establish the negligence on the part of
the rider of the motorcycle, the husband of the deceased/claimant, who was
the eye witness for the alleged accident, was examined and no contra
evidence was adduced on the side of the Insurance Company to rebut the
evidence of the claimant. It is further submitted that the victim has sustained
severe injuries in the said accident due to which her uterus and ovaries were
damaged and that the victim was in continuous treatment for more than ten
years and died on 15.06.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
7. The claim in the claim petition is that on 30.04.2007 at about
15.30 hours, the petitioner was walking on the beach road and while she was
nearing the Kannagi statue, at that time a motorcycle bearing Registration No.
TN 05 F 7591 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit
against the petitioner and caused grievous injuries to her. Hence, the rider of
the motorcycle is solely and directly responsible for the accident and hence
the petitioner was constrained to file the claim petition claiming compensation
of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the said accident. During
the pendency of the case, the injured died and thereafter the legal heir of the
injured, namely, her husband has been impleaded as the first petitioner in the
claim petition. Thereafter, the claim petition was amended from non fatal to
fatal case.
8. It is not in dispute that the alleged accident took place on
30.04.2007, in which the victim Padmavathy suffered injuries. It is clear that
the motor accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the
rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 05 F 7591. There is no
contra evidence on the side of the respondent to rebut the same. Hence, I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
could find no error or infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal in fixing the
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.
9. There is nothing on record to show that the claimant is not the
husband of the deceased Padmavathy. Hence, non production of legal heir
certificate do not vitiate the claim of the claimant. Therefore, the claimant is
entitled to claim compensation.
10. Admittedly the injured died during the pendency of the claim
petition. The appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim of the claimant
that he has not established the direct nexus between the death of the deceased
and the accident which had taken place on 30.04.2007. He further submitted
that in such circumstances, being the dependant of the deceased, the claimant
is entitled to claim only the "No Fault Claim' under Section 140 of the Motor
Vehicles Act for a sum of Rs.50,000/- alone. It is the specific case of the
claimant that the deceased Padmavathy sustained injuries due to the accident
took place on 30.04.2007 and that the injuries sustained by her resulted in her
death on 15.06.2017. The claimant examined as P.W.1 has produced Ex.P2 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 (Discharge Summary notes) to establish the fact that the
deceased was in continuous treatment post accident till her death. P.W.1 had
also clearly deposed that the deceased had died due to the accident that took
place on 30.04.2007. Therefore, non production of postmortem certificate
do not vitiate the claim made by the claimant. No contra evidence was
produced on the side of the appellant/Insurance Company to show that the
deceased had died due to some other reason other than the injuries suffered by
her in the accident. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the
deceased had died only due to the accident that occurred on 30.04.2007,
which warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No. Costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.06.2025
bga
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
To
1. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes),
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and C.M.P. No.21853 of 2023
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
bga
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
C.M.A.No.2294 of 2023 and
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:07 pm )
