Madras High Court
Manivel vs Pichaiammal on 30 June, 2025
C.M.A.No.638 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.638 of 2022
1. Manivel
2. Kalaiarasi …Appellants
Vs.
1. Pichaiammal
(R1 already set ex parte in Lower Court)
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited
ICICI Lombard House,
414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Near Siddi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi,
Mumbai 400 025 …Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act,1988, praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated
06.12.2018 made in MCOP No.239 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:26:20 pm )
C.M.A.No.638 of 2022
Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Perambalur and enhance the
compensation amount awarded to the petitioners.
For Appellants : Ms.V. Pushpalatha
For Respondents : Ms.R. Sree Vidhya for R2
R1 - Ex parte
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree
dated 06.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum
Principal District Judge, Perambalur, in M.C.O.P. No.239 of 2015, whereby
the claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded for the
death of the claimants' son.
2. The facts leading to the case in brief are as follows:
2.1. The deceased Velmurugan was riding a two wheeler (Pulsar)
bearing Registration No.TN 09 BK 2422, belonging to the 1st respondent and
insured with the 2nd respondent (Policy No.3005 / 2010480959 / BO
/0000007647 period from 1/10/14 to 30/9/15), along with his friends Sridar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:26:20 pm )
and Ravikumar as pillion riders. He was proceeding from Azoor to Kunnam
slowly and carefully on the left side of the road and when he was nearing
M.T.S Kalyana Mandabam, Kunnam, he lost his control and dashed against a
tamarind tree. As a result of which, the deceased Velmurugan and the pillion
riders were thrown out and died on the spot. The postmortem was done at
G.H. Perambalur. A case has been registered in Cr.No.31/15 under Section
304(A) IPC in Kunnam Police Station, Perambalur District. The deceased
Velmurugan was a 2nd year DCE student.
2.2. The parents of the deceased Velmurugan filed a Claim Petition
before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.239/2015 and the legal heirs of the
deceased Sridhar and Ravikumar (pillion riders) filed claim petitions in
M.C.O.P. Nos. 237 and 238 of 2015 respectively, claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- each.
2.3. The Tribunal, by an Award dated 06.12.2018, had proceeded to
hold that the deceased Velmurugan, the rider of the motorcycle, alone was
responsible for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:26:20 pm )
petitioners in M.C.O.P. No.239/2015 to be paid from the Solicitor Fund.
However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,43,480/- as compensation for
the pillion riders in the motorcycle, in M.C.O.P. No.237/2015 and M.C.O.P.
No.238/2015 respectively.
3. Challenging the said Award, the claimants (parents of the
deceased Velmurugan) in M.C.O.P. No.239/2015 have preferred the present
appeal.
4. Ms. V. Pushpalatha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/claimants would submit that the alleged accident took place only
due to the sudden crossing of a cattle and there is no negligence on the part of
the rider of the vehicle. She further submits that the Tribunal ought to have
awarded equal compensation to the appellants like the other claimants in
M.C.O.P. Nos.237 and 238 of 2015 and prays for enhancement of
compensation to the appellants.
5. Despite notice, the first respondent remained ex parte.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:26:20 pm )
6. Ms.R. Sree Vidhya, learned counsel for the second
respondent/Insurance Company submits that the deceased Velmurugan was
the rider of the motorcycle at the time of the accident and the same has been
established by the oral and documentary evidence. Since the deceased
Velmurugan was a tortfeasor, the appellants/claimants are not entitled for any
compensation.
7. From a perusal of Ex.P1 (FIR dated 17.01.2015) and Ex.P8
(Postmortem Report) it is clear that the deceased Velmurugan was the rider
of the motorcycle at the time of accident and he succumbed to injuries
sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, the deceased being a tortfeasor,
the appellants/claimants are not entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal
has held that the alleged accident took place due to the negligent act of the
deceased Velmurugan and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the Solicitor
Fund. There is no infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:26:20 pm )
8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
30.06.2025
bga
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge,
Perambalur.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:26:20 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
bga
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:26:20 pm )
