Madras High Court
M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance ... vs Kannaki ... 1St on 27 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 21.02.2025
Pronounced on : 27.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.473, 662 & 663 of 2019
CMA(MD).No.39 of 2019
M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Door No.45, 46, White House Road,
Royapettai,
Chennai-14
Rep. By its Manager ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent
Vs.
1. Kannaki ... 1st Respondent/claimant
2. Muruganantham ... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
3. M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Xavier Building,
Public Works Department Road,
Nagercoil Town,
Rep. By its Senior Divisional Manager
...3rd Respondent / 3rd Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
1/29
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
24.04.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2013 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi and
allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
CMA(MD).No.59 of 2019
M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Door No.45, 46, White House Road,
Royapettai,
Chennai-14
Rep. By its Manager ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent
Vs.
1. Kannaki ... Respondents 1 & 2/claimants
2. Sudalaiammal
3. Muruganantham ... 3rd Respondent/1st Respondent
3. M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Xavier Building,
Public Works Department Road,
Nagercoil Town,
Rep. By its Senior Divisional Manager
...4th Respondent / 3rd Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
2/29
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
24.04.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.69 of 2013 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Additioal Sub Judge, Tenkasi and allow this
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
CMA(MD).No.60 of 2019
M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Door No.45, 46, White House Road,
Royapettai,
Chennai-14
Rep. By its Manager ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent
Vs.
1. Kannaki ... 1st Resondent/claimant
2. Muruganantham ... 2nd Respondent/1st Respodent
3. M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Xavier Building,
Public Works Department Road,
Nagercoil Town,
Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager
...3rd Respondent / 3rd Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
24.04.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2013 on the file of Motor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
3/29
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
Accident Claims Tribunal Additioal Sub Judge, Tenkasi and allow this
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
In all cases
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran – for R3
No Appearance – for R1 & R2
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
The appellant / 2nd respondent / Insurance Company has filed
these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against the fair order and decreetal
order dated 24.04.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.68, 69 and 70 of 2013 by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi
District.
2. Brief facts of the petitions filed by the claimants before
the Tribunal are as follows:
(a) In M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2013, M.C.O.P No. 70 of 2013 filed
by the claimant Mrs.Kannagi, mother of the deceased claiming
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
compensation for the death of the Selvi and minor Gautamraj who died in
a road accident on 26.02.2012. MCOP No.69 of 2013 was filed by the
claimants Mrs.Kannagi, wife of Ammayappan, and Smt. Sudalaiammal,
mother of the said Ammayappan claiming compensation for the death of
the Ammaiyappan who also died in the same accident.
(b) The claimants stated that on 26.02.2012 at 03.00 p.m.,
between Tenkasi to Tirunelveli Road, the above-mentioned three persons
along with others travelled in a TATA Indica Car bearing registration
No.TN 76 L 2902 from Tirunelveli to their native Melagaram. The said
car was driven by its driver Balasubramanian at a moderate speed after
observing the traffic rules. When the car was nearing Alangulam from the
eastern to western side, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 72 AY 3520
belonging to the first respondent, was driven by its driver Velmurugan in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TATA Indica Car. As
a result, Ms.Selvi, her brother Gowthamraj, her father Ammayappan
sustained head injuries and died on the spot.
(c) The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the first respondent. A complaint was lodged
against the lorry driver bearing registration No.TN 72 AY 3520 and FIR
was registered under Section 279, 338, 304(A) of IPC in Crime No.83 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
2012 and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court,
Tenkasi.
(d) Selvi, the daughter of the petitioner was a graduate of
B.A. English and Communication, she completed a Diploma in Computer
Based Technology and obtained a certificate in NIT and she stood as a
brilliant student in education and other curricular activities. She
participated in competitions and won prizes. She was in good health and
she was expected to live until the age of 90 years. She was employed in a
private company and derived a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. For the loss
of estate, loss of happiness and loss of dependency, future income, for
funeral expenditure the claimant sought a sum of Rs.85,91,000/- as
compensation for her death.
(e) The deceased Ammaiappan was working as an Assistant
Manager at Global Wind Power Limited, Chennai. In addition with he
operated two cars for hire and earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month.
As an ex-serviceman, he also received monthly pension of Rs.9,000/-.
He was aged about 53 years old and he was good in health and had not
died in the accident, he could have lived up to 90 years. The first
petitioner is the wife of the deceased and the second petitioner is the
mother of the deceased. Therefore, they claimed a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
Rs.1,04,74,000/- towards compensation for his death.
(f) Minor Gowthamraj, at the time of the accident, was
studying in third standard at Mondicherry School. He participated in all
competitions, he was a brilliant student and claimed a sum of
Rs.83,75,000/-.towards compensation for his death.
(g) The claimants further stated that the lorry bearing
Registration No.TN 72 AY 3520 belonged to the first respondent and was
insured with the second respondent. The third respondent is the
Insurance Company of the TATA Indica Car and the policy was in force.
The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the claim petitioners.
3. The brief averments contained in the counter filed by the
3rd respondent in all claim petitions are as follows:
(a) Since the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent act of the driver of the 1st respondent, this respondent is no way
liable to pay any compensation to these claimants.
(b) The owner of vehicle bearing registration No. TN 76 L
2902 allowed deceased Balasubramanian to drive the car with eight
persons as against its seating capacity i.e., Four plus one as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
Registration Certificate of car as well as policy condition of this
respondent at the time of accident. Hence this respondent is no way liable
to pay any compensation to these claimants as per the averments
contained the petitions.
(c) The age, income, educational qualifications of the
deceased are denied. The claimant has prove above said averments
through proper documentary evidence before Court of law.
4. The brief averments contained in the counter filed by the
2nd respondent in all claim petitions are as follows:
(a) That the insured / owner of the TATA Indica car allowed
its driver to carry eight passengers on board against the seating capacity
of four. Hence, the owner / Insured of the TATA Indica car violated the
policy conditions of the Motor Vehicle Act. This respondent is not liable
to pay any compensation to the claim petitioners.
(b) That the driver of the TATA Indica car drove the vehicle
in the middle of the road, due to negligence on the part of the driver of
the indica car when the accident occurred.
(c) That the rough sketch speaks about the nature of the
accident and the driver of the mini lorry driven the lorry with care and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
diligent manner by observing traffic rules, whereas the driver of the
TATA Indica car drove the vehicle carrying more passengers against the
allowed seating capacity, due to which the accident occurred.
(d) That the claim is highly excessive and arbitrary and the
petitioners are not entitled to the same.
(e) That the respondent states that the rate of interest must be
just and reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors,
including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by the
Reserve Bank of India.
(f) That the driver of the first respondent does not hold a
valid driving license for a mini lorry bearing registration No.TN 72 AY
3520, at the time of the accident
(g) The petitioners are put to strict proof of deceased age,
income and occupation with documentary evidence before the Court. The
allegation that the deceased Selvi was employed as Data Entry Operator
in LG Service Centre at Tirunelveli is denied. The allegation that the
deceased Ammaiyappan, was employed as Assistant Manger in Wind
Mill Company and maintaining two passenger cars and also Ex-service
man and earning Rs.48,000/- per month. The petitioners are put to strict
proof of the same. Hence, prayed for dismissal of these claim petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
5. The Tribunal conducted a joint trial by clubbing M.C.O.P.
Nos. 68 to 70 of 2013. On the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 and P.W.2
were examined and Exs.P1 to Exs.P12 were marked. On the side of the
respondents, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs.R1 to Exs.R3,
Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked.
6. After hearing both sides, the trial Judge awarded a sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.68
of 2013 for the death of Selvi, and awarded a sum of Rs.43,00,600/-
towards compensation for the claimants in M.C.O.P. No.69 of 2013 for
the death of Ammaiyappan and awarded a sum of Rs.6,34,800/- towards
compensation for the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.70 of 2013 for the death
of Gowthamraj. The learned Judge directed the appellant / 2nd
respondent Insurance Company to pay the entire award amount within
two months.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals in C.M.A. (MD) Nos. 39, 59 and 69 of 2019 have been filed by
the Insurance Company / 2nd respondent before the lower Court in
M.C.O.P. Nos.68 to 70 of 2013 against the negligence and quantum with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
the following among other grounds:
(i) That the accident has occurred only due to the claimant's
vehicle as it had been driven by its driver in the middle road without
following the traffic rules.
(ii) That the quantum of compensation in all cases is excessive and
arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside.
(iii) That the FIR clearly shows that nine members were travelling
in the Tata Indica Car, it would be evidence from the RC book that the
seating capacity of the car is only 5, which is in violation of the
insurance policy.
(iv) That the Tribunal erred in fixing the salary of the deceased
Selvi and 40% future prospectus without any proof.
(v) That the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- to deceased
Ammaiyappan and granting 15% of the future prospectus to the deceased
without any permanent job.
Hence, prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and
allow these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents /
claimants argued that the order of the claim Tribunal is proper and no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
interference required to modify the award. He further argued that the
insurance company did not prove that the policy condition was violated.
The claim Tribunal taking into consideration the entire facts, passed the
order, on merit and prayed to dismiss these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals
by confirming the order of the Tribunal.
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material available on records.
10. Since the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arising out of the
judgment in M.C.O.P.Nos.68 to 70 of 2013, issues, facts, evidence and
documents involved in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are the same,
they are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this
common judgment.
11. Now, this court has to decide the following points for
consideration:
(1) whether the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent act of the 1st respondent's lorry driver or the driver
of the Tata Indica Car ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
(2) Whether the compensation awarded in MCOP.No.68
of 2013 by the Tribunal is on the higher side?
(3) Whether the compensation awarded in MCOP.No.69
of 2013 by the Tribunal on the higher side?
(4) Whether the compensation awarded in MCOP.No.70
of 2013 by the Tribunal on the higher side?
(5) whether excess passengers were travelling in the car
by violating policy conditions ?
12. The petitioners before the claim Tribunal filed the
following documents:
(i) Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report dated 26.02.2012
registered by the Alangulam Police Station against one Velmurugan, the
driver of the 1st respondent vehicle for the offence under Sections 279,
338, 304(A) of IPC, in which the complainant named as Kalimuthu,
S/o. Madasamy who was also one of the passenger of the TATA Indica
car. According to the complaint, on 26.02.2012 early morning at about
6.15 a.m., he hired an Indica Car bearing registration No. TN 76 L 2902
to attend the baby-shower function at Tirunelveli. At around
10.30 a.m., he attended the function and then returned in the same car
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
with his wife, daughter, son, his relatives Ammaiyappan, his daughter
Selvi, his son Gowthamraj and one Arumugam. Thiru.Balasubramanian,
was driving the car, nearing Vairam Weighing Bridge, on the route from
Tirunelveli to Tenkasi was struck by a mini lorry bearing registration
No.TN 72 AY 3520 that was being driven by its driver Velmurugan in a
rash and negligent manner. He sustained injury to his right knee. One
Guru S/o. Madasamy and Pechimuthu took them to Tirunelveli
Government Hospital and admitted them for treatment, where he was
informed that, except Minor Harish all the occupants died. Subsequently,
Harish also died. He was examined by the police and recorded the
statement.
(ii) Ex.P.2 is the postmortem certificate of Ammaiyappan
issued by the Assistant Professor Department of Forensic Medicine,
Toxicology, Tirunelveli. Ex.P.3 is the postmortem Certificate of
Gowthamraj issued by the Selvamurugan Assistant Professor. Ex.P.4 is
the postmortem report of Selvi dated : 27.02.2012 issued by the Assistant
Professor Department of Forensic Medicine, Toxicology, Tirunelveli.
Ex.P.5 is the Insurance Policy issued to the vehicle bearing registration
no.TN 72 AY 3520 by the 2nd respondent and the duration of policy is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
from 21.01.2012 to 20.12.2013. Ex.P.6 is the Insurance Policy issued to
the deceased Ammaiyappan for his new Indica car (unregistered vehicle)
from 14.01.2011 to 13.01.2012. Ex.P.7 is the achievement profile of
minor Gowthamraj. Ex.P.8 is the Educational Certificates of deceased
Selvi. Ex.P.9 is the salary certificate and bank statement of the deceased
Ammaiyappan. Ex.P.10 is the bills showing the hire service details and
trip sheets of a car bearing Registration No.TN 76 J 4638. Ex.P.11 is the
hire service bills and receipts of the vehicle bearing registration no.
TN 76 L 2902 of deceased Ammaiyappan. Ex.P.12 is the Motor Vehicle
Inspection Report of Vehicles bearing registration nos. TN 76 L 2902 of
the Tata indica car and TN 72 AY 3520 of the mini lorry issued by the
Motor Vehicle Inspector, Tenkasi on 28.12.2012 he opined that the
accident happened not due to mechanical defect.
13. On the side of the respondents, the insurance policy of
Tata Indica car was marked as Ex.R1 from the period 14.11.2011 to
midnight on 13.11.2012. Ex.R2 is the Lok Adalat award passed in
M.C.O.P. No.180 of 2012 for a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- Ex.R.3 is the also
Lok Adalat award passed in M.C.O.P No. 185 of 2012 for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.X1 is the Salary slip of late. Ammaiyappan. Ex.X2 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and Ex.X.3 is the registration
certificate of vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 76 L 2902 (Indica Car).
14. The learned counsel for the appellant / 2nd respondent,
the Insurance company argued that the accident had occurred only due to
the claimant's vehicle as it had been driven in the middle of the road
without following the traffic rules and he had not liable for the negligent
act of the respondent driver.
15. The claimants produced Ex.P1, the FIR registered in
Crime. No.83 of 2012 by the Alangulam Police Station against one
Velmurugan. The complaint was filed by Thiru.Kalimuthu one of the
co-passengers in the Indica car stating that the driver Velmurugan of a
mini lorry bearing Registration No. TN 72 AY 3520 was driving the
vehicle in reckless manner.
16. The driver of the 1st respondent was examined as R.W.3.
During his chief examination he stated that at the time of the accident,
the Indica car came behind a bus. The driver of the car tried to overtake
the bus, collided with the mini lorry and caused the accident. Nine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
passengers were travelling in the said vehicle, at the time of accident, but
a false case has been foisted against him. The driver of the Indica car was
the sole reason for the accident.
17. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not
lodged any complaint against the driver of the Indica car. If the 1st
respondent’s vehicle had not been involved in the accident, the driver of
the 1st respondent would have filed a complaint against the driver of the
Indica car. No such complaint was filed. As per the counter, the driver of
the Indica car was driving the vehicle in the middle of the road, but R.W.
3 did not disclose anything in his chief examination. But he stated a
different version that, the Indica car tried to overtake a bus and hit his
vehicle which is a new defence for which no evidence was produced. No
sketch was produced on the side of the 1st respondent to prove the exact
place of the accident.
18. Further, the Junior Assistant of the Regional Transport
Office was examined as R.W.2. He stated that it revealed from the record
that the 1st respondent driver hit the Indica car.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
19. Further, the Motor Vehicle Inspection report when
perused shows that extensive damages were incurred to the Indica car,
namely, the steering column damaged, the front windscreen left broken,
top of the roof damaged, front rear – left and right side – wheel arch
damaged (door), Benet front should damaged, driver seat damaged. From
the evidence and records it is proved that the driver of the 1 st respondent
vehicle was responsible for the negligence. The claim Tribunal holds the
1st respondent (driver) responsible for the accident. Since the 1st
respondent had insured his vehicle with the 2nd respondent (Insurer), the
2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation. The appellant failed to
prove the finding as false. We do not wish to interfere with the Tribunal's
decision.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant, further argued that
the income and future prospectus of the deceased Selvi and
Ammaiyappan were determined without proper documents. It reveals
from the records that Ms. Selvi, at the time of death, she was aged about
25 years. The claimant stated that she derived a sum of Rs.4,000/- per
month. The educational qualifications of the deceased Selvi is a graduate
in B.A. Tamil and obtained Computer Diploma certificate. The Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,000/- which is not exorbitant. As per
the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case if a person
is self employed below 40 years of age 40% to be added as future
prospectus. At the time of accident she was below 40 years and her
future prospectus was fixed at 40% which is appropriate. According to
the salary certificate of the deceased Ammaiyappan, he was employed as
a Deputy Manager in the Global Wind Power Limited and earned a sum
of Rs.4,80,000/- per annum. He was aged about 53 years. After verifying
the salary certificate the Tribunal fixed 15% future prospectus which is
proper. Further more the claim tribunal, determined the compensation for
the claimant's deceased son in accordance with following the guidelines
of the Hon’ble Apex court. There is no irregularity in the award passed
by the Tribunal, we confirm the compensation fixed by the Tribunal.
21. However it is the further contention of the appellant that
nine persons were travelling in the car at the time of the accident which
is in violation of policy conditions and the 2nd respondent is not liable to
pay compensation for the negligent act of deceased. He produced a
judgment reported in the National Insurance Company Ltd., vs S.Chitra
and others reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 411, in which the Court has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
held as follows:
''13. We quote the following paragraphs in the case
of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Coimbatore Division-I) Ltd., Vs. Abdul
Salam and others reported in 2003 (2) LW 75.
(10) We are concerned as to whether such
action of the individuals is permissible under law.
The motorcycle and any other two-wheelers are
meant only for two persons, the rider and a pillion
rider. If more than two persons are travelling on a
motorcycle or any other two-wheeler, undoubtedly
such action of the individual would become illegal
and unauthorised. It is an awful sight when we
come across three persons travelling on a
motorcycle. They are sitting in such a cramped
manner that the rider of the motorcycle almost
sitting on the petrol tank or at the front edge of the
seat. When he was sitting in such a position,
naturally because of the restricted movement of his
legs, he could not have complete control over the
brake. The movements of his hands were also
restricted. When that be so, this Court is of the
opinion that definitely the rider of the two-wheeler
cannot have full control over the vehicle.
(11) Apart from that, when three persons are
travelling in a motorcycle, two as pillion riders, any
unusual movement of the pillion riders would make
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
the rider of the motorcycle to lost his control over
the vehicle. Even though such travelling of three
persons on a motorcycle is contrary to the statute,
still the enforcement wing does not care to take note
of the same and failed to take action against their
illegal action. Virtually because of the failure on the
part of the enforcement wing, such travelling of
three persons on two-wheelers has become a
regular sight. Even though highway patrolling is
available but it is a rare sight to see a highway
patrolling vehicle. Travelling of three persons has
become rampant in the mofussils and in the city;
especially among the youngsters like the college
students. When that be the case, the enforcing
authority is expected to enforce the statute with
some strictness to avoid any untoward incident.
There is no purpose in conducting Road Safety
Week without infusing the road sense in compliance
with the Rules and Regulations of the statute in the
minds of those who are using the vehicles.
(12) When three persons travel in a
motorcycle which is meant for two persons, this
Court is of the view the conduct of the persons who
travel in such manner are liable for contributory
negligence; especially when their action is contrary
to the statute. We fully share the views expressed
above. The accident is that case In 1995. 14 years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
have passed. There is no improvement. In fact, we
can seek 5 persons travelling on a two-wheeler with
the child in front totally blocking the vision of his
father who is driving. We can only shake our heads
in despelas In that case, the Division Bench held
that the responsibility of the deceased was 50%.
14. However we feel the degree of contributory
negligence can be fixed at 20% on the part of the
deceased. We appreciate the fairness with which the
learned Counsel for the Insurance Company accepted that
the percentage of negligence could be pegged down at
20% considering that the family is a young family which
has lost its breadwinner. Therefore the contributory
negligence is fixed at 20%.
22. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant
referred the FIR registered by the complaint Thiru. Kalimuthu. In his
complaint, he has clearly admitted that nine passengers were travelling in
the TATA Indica Car at the time of the accident. Further, the Insurance
Company produced Ex.R.1 insurance policy shows that the capacity of
the vehicle is four members only and the owner of Indica car
Thiru. Ammaiyappan violated the policy condition by allowing more
passengers in his car.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
23. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant supra is squarely applicable to this case.
24. We agree with the argument advanced by the appellant,
that more passengers were indeed travelling in the vehicle than its
original capacity which could have restricted the movement of the
driver's legs. This may have affected his ability to fully control the brake.
The deceased Ammaiyappan, who was the owner of the car admitted nine
passengers and violated the policy condition and this Court hold that he
is also contributed for the negligence.
25. After considering the pathetic condition of the claimant
that she lost her entire family members viz., her husband (sole
breadwinner of the family), daughter and son. We have decided to fix the
contributory negligence at 20% on the part of the owner. Therefore, the
contributory negligence is fixed at 20%. Point Nos.1 and 5 are answered
accordingly.
26. There are no other serious lapses in the order passed by
the Tribunal. In other aspects, we do not wish to interfere with the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
of the Tribunal.
27. In M.C.O.P No. 68 of 2013 the Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.6,00,000/- to the claimant and this Court deducted the contributory
negligence is 20% of Rs.1,20,000/-. Therefore, in C.M.A. (MD) No. 39
of 2019 the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,80,000/-. Point No.2 is
answered accordingly.
28. In M.C.O.P No. 69 of 2013 the Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.43,00,600/- to the claimant and this Court deducted the
contributory negligence is 20% of Rs.8,60,120/-. Therefore, in C.M.A.
(MD) No. 59 of 2019 the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs,34,40,480/-.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
29. In M.C.O.P No. 70 of 2013 the Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.6,34,800/- to the claimant and this Court deducted the contributory
negligence is 20% of Rs.1,26,960/-. Therefore, in C.M.A. (MD) No. 60
of 2019 the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,07,840/-. Point No.4 is
answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
30. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
partly allowed, this Court deducted 20% for the contributory negligence
and the appellant/ 2nd respondent is directed to pay the compensation
amount after deduction of 20% to the Claimants.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. The award passed by the trial Court is modified and the
Appellant 2nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.4,80,000/- to the 1st respondent / claimant along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of
the amount, less the amount if already deposited to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tenkasi, within four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st
respondent/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, less the amount
already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest and costs,
by filing an appropriate petition before the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. The award passed by the trial Court is modified and the
Appellant / 2nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum
of Rs.34,40,480/- to the 1st and 2nd respondents / claimants along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of deposit of the amount, less the amount if already deposited to the
credit of M.C.O.P.No.69 of 2013 on the file of the Additional
Subordinate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tenkasi, within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit,
the 1st respondent /1st claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.28,00,000/-
towards her share and the 2nd respondent / 2nd claimant is entitled to a
sum of Rs.6,40,480/- towards her share and the claimants are permitted
to withdraw their share, less the amount already withdrawn, if any,
together with proportionate interest and costs, by filing an appropriate
petition before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
allowed. The award passed by the trial Court is modified and the
Appellant / 2nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum
of Rs.5,07,840/- to the 1st respondent / claimant along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of
the amount, less the amount if already deposited to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tenkasi, within four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the first
respondent/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, less the amount
already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest and costs,
by filing an appropriate petition before the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.J., J.) & (R.P., J.)
27.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
GVN/RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Additional Sub Judge,
Tenkasi,
Copy to
1.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
C.M.A(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
gvn/RM
Common Judgment in
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.39, 59 & 60 of 2019
27.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:49:14 pm )
