Madras High Court
The Manager vs Rajini on 30 June, 2025
C.M.A.No. 372 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 05.06.2025
Pronounced on 30.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.M.A.No.372 of 2022 and
C.M.P. No.2583 of 2022
The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
No.73C, MTH Road, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 057
Now at,
Motor Third Party Claims Hub,
No.134, Silingi Buildings
4th Floor, Greams Road Chennai 6 …Appellant
Vs.
1. Rajini
2. M. Ajith Kumar
3. M. Naveen Kumar
4. M. Saravanan …Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
C.M.A.No. 372 of 2022
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act,1988, against the award dated 11.12.2020 in M.C.O.P. No.118
of 2018 passed by the Special District Judge-1, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Tiruvallur .
Appearance
For Appellant : Mr.P. Sankaranarayanan
For Respondents : Mr. S.R. Karthikeyan for R1 to R3
R4 No appearance.
JUDGMENT
By the impugned Award dated 11.12.2020 passed in M.C.O.P.
No.118/2018, the learned Special District Judge-1, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Tiruvallur, has awarded, in favour of the claimants/respondents 1 to
3, a sum of Rs.20,06,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of presentation of the petition i.e. 19.12.2018 till the date
of realisation with costs. Challenging the same the present appeal is filed by
the Insurance Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the Tribunal.
3. The claimants' case, in brief, was that on 20.10.2017, at about
16.30 hours, the deceased pedestrian, was crossing a road near Magna
Engineering College, Magaral Kandigai Village at Tiruvallur to Redhills
Road, and at that time, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 09 CB 9382, came
in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against the deceased and caused the accident, as a result of which, the
deceased died on the spot.
3.1. According to the claimants, who are the wife and sons
respectively of the deceased, the alleged accident took place only due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration
No.TN 09 CB 9382 and that since the said vehicle was insured with the
appellant/second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited,
the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
to them. Further it is stated in the Claim Petition that at the time of the
accident the deceased was aged about 40 years and he was a gold smith
earning a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day.
4. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record and since no
documentary evidence has been brought on record for proving the income of
the deceased, fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.15,349/- based on the inflation index and, considering the age of the
deceased, added 25% for future prospects and adopted multiplier of 14
and calculated the loss of earning capacity at Rs.21,48,888/-. Since there are
three depandants, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 towards his personal expenses
and awarded the above amount. To this amount, the Tribunal added
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium,
Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transport
expenses. Thus the Tribunal has awarded, in all, a sum of Rs.22,28,888/- and
deducted 10% towards contributory negligence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
5. Challenging the amount deducted towards contributory
negligence is inadequate, the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this
Appeal.
6. Mr.P. Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that FIR (Ex.P1) lodged by the son of the deceased reveals that the
deceased was in a mentally disturbed state of mind before the accident and
had suddenly crossed the centre median and invited the accident. His further
contention is that the eye witness examined as P.W.2 categorically admitted
during the course of cross examination that the deceased jumped over the
centre median and walked into the pathway of the lorry and met with an
accident. While so, the Tribunal had erred in fixing only 10% towards
contributory negligence, which is inadequate and requires interference by this
Court.
7. On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel
appearing for the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 submits that the driver of the
offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
dashed against the deceased. Hence, the driver of the lorry alone was
responsible for the accident and there is no negligence on the part of the
deceased .
8. In the light of the above factual position, the only point for
consideration is that whether the driver of the offending vehicle was solely
negligent or there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased
and if so, what would be its extent?
9. The Tribunal has considered the FIR (Ex.P1) and the evidence of
P.W.2, the eye witness to the accident. On a careful perusal of Ex.P1/FIR,
the contents reveal that
"xxxxx vd;Dila mg;gh kNfe;jpud; eif Mr;rhhp
Ntiy nra;J tUfpwhh;. rpy fhykhf kd
cisr;ryhy; fhzg;gl;lhh;. New;W fhiy Ntiyf;F
nry;tjhf nrhy;yptpl;L nrd;wth; New;W 20.10.2017-e;
Njjp khiy 4.30 kzpastpy; khfuy; Nkf;dh fy;Y}hp
mUfpy; TN-09-CB-9382 vz;Zs;s yhhp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
nrq;Fd;wj;jpypUe;J jhkiug;ghf;fk; Nehf;fp tUk;NghJ
yhhpapd; FWf;Nf nrd;Ws;shh;. mg;NghJ yhhp mth; kPJ
Nkhjpajhy; vd; mg;gh rk;gt ,lj;jpNyNa
,we;Jtpl;lhh; xxxxx "
Further more P.W.2 had deposed as follows:
"xxxxx ,we;J Nghd egh; khfuy; fz;bif NgUe;J
epWj;jk; mUfpy; Nkf;dh nghwpapay; fy;Y}hp mUfpy;
nul;-`py;]; nry;Yk; rhiyapypUe;J ,lJGwj;jpypUe;J
tyJGwk; nry;tjw;fhf rhiy eLtpy; cs;s jLg;G
(Center Median) Rtiu jhz;b ,wq;Fk; NghJ Nuhl;bd;
ikag;gFjpapy; jpUts;Sh; Nehf;fp te;j bk;gh; yhhp
gjpT vz;. TN-09-CB-9382 Ntfkhf te;J me;j egiu
,bj;Jtpl;lJ xxxxx"
"xxxxx ,we;jth; nrd;lh; kPbad; Vwp fpuh]; nra;a
Nghdhh;. me;j ,lj;jpy; Nuhl;il fpuh]; nra;a NghLk;
eilghij nts;is NfhL ,y;iy. xxxxx".
The Tribunal has also considered Ex.P6/rough sketch and concluded that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
deceased at the time of the accident crossed the centre median and while
attempting to cross the road, the offending lorry dashed against him and
therefore, fixed 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
The Tribunal considered that the evidence of P.W.2 as worthy credence as eye
witness and also Ex.P1/FIR and Ex.P6/rough sketch.
10. The evidence on record, as found by the Tribunal, establishes
that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and it cannot
be disputed. The only dispute is whether there was contributory negligence
on the part of the deceased. The evidence on record, as found by the
Tribunal, establishes that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the
vehicle and it cannot be disputed. The only dispute is whether there was
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The evidence on record
shows that, at the time of accident, the deceased crossed the centre median
and while crossing the road, he met with an accident. No. doubt, had the
driver of the offending vehicle driven the vehicle at reasonable speed, he
could have avoided the accident by applying brakes. But, now a days, the
pedestrians take the risk of crossing the roads though it is strictly prohibited.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
In spite of precautions, people like the deceased make attempts to cross the
road, wherever it is possible. In the present case, if the deceased had not
crossed the centre median for crossing the road, he would not have met with
an accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that
there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased pedestrian.
However, only 10% has been fixed as contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased, which, according to this Court, can be increased to 20%.
Accordingly, taking into consideration 20% contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased, the total compensation works out to Rs.17,83,110/-
(Rs.22,28,888/- (total Award amount) - Rs.4,45,778/- (20% contributory
negligence). The claimants are entitled to Rs.17,83,110/- (Rupees seventeen
lakhs eighty three thousand one hundred and ten only), which is fair and
reasonable.
11. In the result,
1. The appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is partly allowed.
No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
2. 10% contributory negligence fastened on the part of the deceased by
the Tribunal is increased to 20%.
3. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.17,83,110/- (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.118 of 2018 on the file of
the Special District Judge-1, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tiruvallur, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
4. On such deposit being made, the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 are at
liberty to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the
Tribunal after filing a proper petition for withdrawal.
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 07:35:49 pm )
To,
1. The Special District Judge-1, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvallur
2.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
C.M.A.No.372 of 2022 and
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
