Madras High Court
The Manager vs / on 7 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on :22.10.2025
Pronounced on :07.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.M.A.No.163 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.1219 of 2022
The Manager,
M/s IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,
IFFCO Bhavan, 5th Floor,
No.181, Waterfield Road,
Near National College, Bandra,
Mumbai 400 050, Maharastra State. ...Appellant/Respondent
/versus/
1.Mrs.Jyothi, W/o Late Kesavamurthy,
2.Dhayaswaroop (Minor), S/o Late Kesavamurthy,
3.Karthkeya (Minor), S/o Late Kesavamurthy,
4.Mrs.Girija, W/o Venkatasamy,
Mr.Venkatasamy(died)
5.Hema Saraswathi, D/o Venkatasamy
(Respondents 2 & 3 Minors Rept.
By mother & NF 1st Respondent)
All are residing at
Door No.21/109, Virupatchi Koil Street,
Kelamangalam Village & Post,
Denkanikottai Taluk,
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
Krishnagiri Taluk & District. ..Respondents 1 to 5/Petitioners
6.M/s Sindhu Cargo Services Pvt.Ltd.,
Building No.109, Unit No.3,
Logistic Park, Indian Corporation,
Dapode Village,Bhiwandi,
Maharashtra 421 302. ..6th Respondent/1st Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.327 of 2017, dated 19.03.2020 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur.
For Appellant :Mr. M.B.Raghavan
For Respondents :Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj for R1 to R5
R6-exparte
----------
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
The Appellant herein is the Manager, M/s IFFCO TOKIO General
Insurance Company Limited. The Appeal is directed against the award passed
by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur in
M.C.O.P.No.327 of 2017 dated 19.03.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
2.The Respondents 1 to 5 are the dependants/claimants of the
accident victim Kesavamurthy. The sixth respondent is the owner of the
offending vehicle bearing Registration No:MH 04/GR 4742. (Canter Lorry).
3.The case of the claimants before the Tribunal:
On 30.09.2015 at about 11.30 hours, Kesavamurthy, aged about 30
years, while riding the two wheeler Hero Honda Splendor bearing
Registration No:TN 70-L 8752 sustained fatal injuries on his head and vital
organ when the lorry bearing Registration No:MH 04/GR 4742 hit his two
wheeler on the rear and dashed him down.
4. On the date of the accident, the victim was working as
Accountant in a Private Firm, by name, M/s Millennium Cargo Carriers,
Hosur, for a salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. His wife, two minor children, father,
mother and unmarried sister were depending on his income. The loss and
expenses estimated as Rs.97,05,200/-. However, claim petition filed
restricting the claim to Rs.50,00,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) against the
owner of the vehicle and the insurer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
5. The owner of the vehicle remained absent. The Insurance
Company which has indemnified the lorry owner, contested the claim petition
on the ground that
(a) The victim failed to follow the Road Rules properly. Instead of
using the service road for riding two wheeler, he was riding his vehicle on the
Highways meant for heavy vehicles. The negligence of the victim is the cause
for the accident.
(b)The victim had no driving license. The two wheeler was not
insured.
(c)The alleged employment of the victim and his income claimed
by the claimants denied.
(d)The victim had predominantly contributed to the accident.
6. The Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration:-
(1)Whether the accident had happened due to the negligent act of
the Canter Lorry bearing Registration No: MH 04 GR 4742 ?
(2)Whether the respondent is liable to pay compensation ? if so,
how much compensation, the petitioner is entitled to ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
7. Pending petition, the father of the victim died and his death was
recorded. On behalf of the claimants, the first petitioner, the wife of the
victim examined as PW-1. To prove the negligence on the part of the lorry
driver, one Mr.Siyam was examined as PW-2. Mr.Anandakumar, a co-worker
of the victim examined as PW-3 to prove his income. 19 documents marked
as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-19. On the side of the respondents, the Motor Vehicle
Inspector Report in respect of the two wheeler and the lorry marked as Ex.R-
1 and Ex.R-2 respectively.
8. The Tribunal on considering the evidence, awarded Rs.
31,59,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest p.a. It apportioned the
compensation among the petitioners as below:-
1st Petitioner (widow) :- 18,59,000/-
2nd and 3rd Petitioners:
(minor children) :-4,00,000 /- each.
4th petitioner ( mother) :-3,00,000/-
6th petitioner (sister) :-2,00,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
9. The Tribunal on considering Ex.P-8, the salary certificate signed
and given by the Proprietor of M/s Millennium Cargo Carrier and Ex.P-19
authorisation letter given in writing by its Proprietor, found discrepancies and
the evidence of PW-3, held unreliable. In the absence of other documents,
like, income tax returns, pay particulars furnished to the relevant Government
Authorities, notionally fixed the monthly income of the deceased
Kesavamurthy at Rs.15,000/- p.m. By applying multiplier ‘16’, the Tribunal
fixed the loss of income at Rs.21,60,000/- and added 40% (Rs.8,64,000)
towards future prospect. It then, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure.
10. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads
is as below:-
1 Loss of dependency Rs.21,60,000/-
2. Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000/-
3. Transportation Rs.10,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs.20,000/-
6. Future Prospects Rs.8,64,000/-
7. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
Total Rs.31,59,000/-
11. The appeal by the Insurance Company is on the following
grounds:-
a) The Tribunal erred in fixing negligence on the lorry driver based
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
on the evidence of PW-2, who claims that he was riding his two wheeler
behind the victim and say, the lorry was rashly and negligently hitting the
two wheeler of the victim. PW-2 presence at the scene of accident is highly
doubtful since, he had not mentioned about the details of the two wheeler in
which he claims to have been riding. He admits that he does not possess a
driving license. He is not conversant with Tamil language in which he has
sworn affidavit in lieu of his chief examination.
12. Further, the FIR Ex.P-1, which is relied by the Tribunal to fix
the negligence on the lorry driver is given by one Balamurugan, the brother
of the victim Kesavamurthy. The defacto complainant is neither an eye
witness nor a witness in the claim petition. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not
to have relied on Ex.P-1 for the purpose of fixing the negligence on the lorry
driver. The Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that, the
Tribunal ought to have considered the contribution by the victim, who had
driven the un-insured two wheeler, without a valid driving license and
without wearing helmet. The head injuries he sustained had caused the death.
Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be forced to pay the compensation
without any deduction towards the contributory negligence which could be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
apparently seen. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal
without any evidence regarding the qualification of the victim or his earning
capacity. The compensation under other heads is also in contrary to the
principle laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case.
13. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted
that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence on the lorry driver, in view
of the documentary evidence Ex.P-1 FIR and the ocular evidence of PW-2. In
the absence of contra evidence, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be found
fault.
14. Regarding the quantum, the Learned Counsel submitted that,
the victim aged about 32 years died due to the injuries he sustained in the
road accident. He was gainfully employed for a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-
in a private firm and the same is proved through Ex.P-8 and through the
testimony of PW-3. The Trial Court however fixed the salary notionally at
Rs.15,000/- with 40% addition towards future prospects, since the claimants
were not able to file any other proof for the income. The compensation under
the other head also not in excessive or contrary to the dictum laid in Pranay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
Sethi’s case.
15. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
16. The road accident is not disputed. The negligent and rash
driving is attributed to the lorry driver against whom the First Information
Report registered under Crime No:319 of 2015 under Sections 279 and
304(A) IPC. That apart, one of the witnesses for the claimant namely Siyam
had spoken about the accident. His evidence is not impeached in the cross
examination. No contra evidence available to doubt about the negligence of
the lorry driver or any element of contribution by the victim. Failure to
produce the driving licence of the victim to the MV Inspector, who had given
the report Ex.R-1, is not a conclusive proof that the victim had no driving
license. Driving on the Highway instead of service road is not violation of
road rules unless there is specific prohibition. In this case, the Insurance
Company had not produced any evidence to show that two wheelers are
prohibited to use the Highways in Hosur- Bangalore NH 44 Road, near
Dharga Bus Stop.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
17. In respect of quantum, we find that the Tribunal has not relied
on Ex.P-8 or the evidence of PW-3. It has taken into consideration the age
and earning capacity of the victim based on his qualification and had fixed
Rs.15,000/- as income p.m. There is no excess either in fixing the notional
income nor in awarding compensation on the other heads, in view of the
number of dependants and their age. We find no serious deviation or
violation of the dictum laid in Pranay Sethi’s case.
18. Therefore, we dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and
confirm the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No. 327 of 2017 dated
19.03.2020. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No
order as to costs.
(Dr.G.J.J.) & (M.S.K.J.)
07.11.2025
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
Speaking order/non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
ari
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court, Hosur.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
ari
delivery Judgment made in
and
07.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm )
