Madras High Court
Vigneshwaran … vs Manikandan on 30 June, 2025
C.M.A.No. 1299 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.1299 of 2023
Vigneshwaran …Appellant
Vs.
1. Manikandan
2. Revathi
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
D.No.39/40, Saradha Shopping Complex,
Workshop Road, Simmakkal,
Madurai District 625 001. …Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act,1988, praying to enhance the award in the order dated
09.02.2023 made in MCOP No.224 of 2022, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Judge No.II, Salem.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
C.M.A.No. 1299 of 2023
Appearance
For Appellant : Mr.C. Paraneedharan
For Respondents : R1 & R2 - No appearance
Mr. N. Sampath for R3.
JUDGMENT
The claimant has filed this appeal, aggrieved over the inadequate
Award of Rs.78,000/- made in M.C.O.P. No.224/2022 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.II), Salem, for the injuries
sustained by the appellant/claimant.
2. The facts of the case are that on 06.11.2021, at about 6.15 p.m.,
the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a Motor Cycle bearing
Registration No. TN 60 BZ 2944 at Devadanapatti-Periakulam Main Road
and while nearing Devangar Polytechnic, the rider of the motorcycle rode the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with great speed and dashed against a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 69 C 4506 and caused the accident.
In the said accident the claimant/appellant suffered grievous injuries and was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
immediately taken to the hospital for treatment. At the time of accident, the
claimant/appellant was 25 years old and was working in a private company as
a field officer earning a sum of Rs.19,000/- per month. Hence, he was
constrained to file a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as
compensation for the injuries sustained by him.
3. Before the Tribunal, in the counter filed by the 3rd
respondent/Insurance Company, it was pleaded that the claimant has violated
the Rule, i,e., three persons travelled in the motorcycle and therefore, the
Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimant.
4. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, fastened
50% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and directed the
third respondent Insurance Company to pay compensation of 78,000/- (50%
of the total compensation of Rs.1,56,000/-) to the appellant/claimant together
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the
date of realisation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
5. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation and challenging
fastening of negligence on his part, the claimant has filed the present appeal.
6. Heard on both sides and perused the records.
7. There is no debate with regard to the Insurance coverage of the
offending vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 60 BZ 2944 with the 3rd
respondent Insurance Company at the time of accident. But, the 3rd
respondent very much assails the claim of the claimant contending that since
there was violation of the policy conditions, the claimant is not entitled for
compensation.
8. In certain cases, this Court had occasions to discuss the liability
of the Insurance Company, for payment of compensation to the aggrieved
parties under the circumstances where the number of passengers were
exceeding the prescribed limit. However, the 3rd respondent Insurance
Company has not preferred any appeal assailing the Award passed by the
Tribunal. Only the claimant has preferred the present appeal questioning the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
fixation of 50% contributory negligence on his part by the Tribunal. While
dealing with such identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
catena of decisions has held that merely by lifting a person or two, it cannot
be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events,
be denied indemnification. Breach of the condition of the policy was
somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an
end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had
gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. If the Insurance Company is
able to prove that it is because of the additional persons, who are allowed to
occupy the vehicle, the accident occurred, the position would be different. In
the case on hand, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company failed to adduce any
oral or documentary evidence to prove that it is because of the additional
persons, the accident occurred. Conversely it is proved that the rider of the
motorcycle bearing Registration No.60 BZ 2944 rode the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and caused the accident. Moreover in the case on hand, the
claimant was only travelling as a pillion rider in the offending motorcycle. In
the case of Sunita Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation reported in
(2020)13 SCC 486 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
"It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once
the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the
accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be
to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had
taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor
vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly
bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding
cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of
proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of
probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all
reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases"
9. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the rider of the
motorcycle was negligent and that the question of contributory negligence
arises only when there has been some act of omission on the part of the
claimant. To prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent
evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the
accident has taken place due to the negligence of the claimant. Thus the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
accident occurred only due to the sole negligence on the part of the rider of
the motorcycle. Consequently, there is no question of apportionment of
liability for compensation on the part of the claimant.
10.Therefore, keeping it in mind the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that the findings of the Tribunal that there
was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant appears to be passed
without any proper reasoning and justification in the absence of clear
evidence on record. Though it is contended on the side of the appellant that
the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under the heads of pain and
suffering, loss of amenities, loss of income, transport expenses to the hospital,
extra nourishments and attender charges, this Court finds that the Tribunal has
awarded just and reasonable compensation in the aforesaid heads, which
requires no interference by this Court.
11. Therefore, in my considered view, the Tribunal has committed
an error deducting 50% on the total compensation Award amount. Hence, the
Award of the Tribunal needs to be modified.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
12. In the result,
1. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is partly allowed. No costs.
2. 50% contributory negligence fastened on the part of the claimant by the
Tribunal is set aside.
3. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.1,56,000/- (less the amount already deposited) together 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 MCOP.224 of 2022 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Judge No.II,
Salem, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
4. On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is at liberty to
withdraw the same after filing a proper petition for withdrawal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
5. The appellant / claimant is directed to pay court fee for the enhanced
compensation amount, if any, within a period of four weeks from the
date of this order and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only
after receipt of the Court fee.
30.06.2025
bga
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
To,
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Special Subordinate Judge No.II, Salem
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
D.No.39/40, Saradha Shopping Complex,
Workshop Road, Simmakkal, Madurai District 625 001
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
bga
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
