Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Panimalar on 25 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 12.11.2025
Pronounced on : 25.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER
KUMAR
C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.13385 of 2022
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office,
Court Street, Tiruppur. ... Appellant / 3rd respondent
Vs
1.Panimalar
2.Minor M.Ugesh
3.Minor Vikashini ... Respondents / Petitioners 1 to 3
4.Dhanasekaran ... Respondent / 1st Respondent
5.Sivasamy ... Respondent / 2nd Respondent
This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in MACT
O.P.No.714 of 2017 dated 29.03.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:18 pm )
C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022
Claim Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr.N.B.Sureka
For Respondents : Mr.MA.P.Thangavel for RR1 to 3
No Appearance for R4
R5 – set exparte
JUDGMENT
Appeal filed by the Insurance company against the award passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tiruppur in M.A.C.O.P.No.714 of
2017 dated 29.03.2019.
2.The petition for compensation filed by the wife and two minor
children of the accident victim seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with
interest against the driver, owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer of
the vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:18 pm )
3.According to the claimants, on 27.11.2016 at about 7.20 P.M., the
husband of the 1st claimant and father of the minor claimants 2 and 3 while
proceeding in his Hero Honda Passion Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.TN-
40-D-7972 on Sathy to Mettupalayam Road, near Viscose bus stop, a JCB
bearing Reg. No.KL-39-6829 proceeding in front of the deceased vehicle
got punctured and abruptly stopped without any indication by its driver. Due
to sudden brake applied by the JCB driver, Muthuraja dashed against the
bucket of the JCB and thrown on the road sustaining severe head injury and
injury all over the body. He died on the spot. The claimants being his
dependants stating that at the time of accident, Muthuraja was working as a
Supervisor in a Garments Company and earning more than Rs.20,000/- as
salary and bonus. He was 40 years old at that time and he had a good future
prospects. Hence, towards loss of earning and future prospects, loss of
consortium and loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- claimed
as compensation.
4.The Insurance Company contested the claim on the ground that, the
accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased, who
recklessly drove his two wheeler and dashed behind the JCB vehicle. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:18 pm )
criminal case was registered against the deceased, for his negligent driving
and the same was closed as abated, by misrepresentation claim petition has
filed with false averment. The driver of the JCB had no valid driving licence
and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation on behalf
of the vehicle owner. The claim of compensation is exorbitant without any
supporting document. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5.Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the 1st claimant,
Panimalar, was examined as PW-1. Three more witnesses were examined by
the claimants to prove the accident and negligence of the JCB driver. Exs.P1
to P11 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the
respondents, three witnesses were examined and Exs.R1 to R10 were
marked.
6.The Tribunal on considering the evidence held that as per the First
Information Report Ex.P1, complaint was lodged against the driver of the
JCB. The complainant is the 1st claimant. PW-2 is the co-worker of the
deceased who was following him after the office hours had witnessed the
accident and deposed in favour of the claimants. Though the police has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:18 pm )
closed the complaint as mistake of fact, considering the ocular evidence of
PW-2 and the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, the Tribunal held the JCB
driver responsible for the accident. The pay slip of the deceased for the
month of October 2016 taken as guidance for fixing the loss of earning.
After adding 25% towards future prospects to the gross salary, Tribunal
fixed Rs.22,086/- as monthly income and after applying multiplier 15
deducted 1/3 towards personal expenditure and awarded a sum of
Rs.26,50,320/- towards loss of income. Following Pranay Sethi case for
three claimants, loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/- and for funeral expenses
Rs.15,000/- with transport expense of Rs.5,000/- awarded. A total
compensation of Rs.27,90,320/- fixed payable to the claimants with interest
at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of
deposit. Taking into consideration, the driver of the JCB had no valid
licence, the Tribunal had deducted 10% from the total compensation
payable to the claimants.
7.In the appeal by the Insurance Company, it is contended that, the
Tribunal having found that there is a policy violation by the insured, the
entire award amount ought to have been fastened on the owner of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:18 pm )
vehicle and its driver. Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the
policy violator. The Court below fail to appreciate that PW-1 is an interested
witness. Moreover, she an eye witness to the occurrence, so she is not
competent to speak about the negligence. However, the Tribunal overlooked
the closure report of the police after investigation and held the driver of the
JCB was negligent.
8.When the JCB driver had no valid licence, the order of the Tribunal
directing the Insurance Company to pay 90% of the compensation is
contrary to the fundamental law of torts. The learned Tribunal failed to see
that the deceased died due to head injury and was not wearing helmet. For
his negligence, atleast 50% of the compensation ought to have been
deducted.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
when the fault is on the deceased and the driver of the JCB had no valid
driving licence, the compensation awarded has to be set aside.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:18 pm )
submitted that First Information Report, given by the wife of the deceased,
is based on the information given to the defacto complainant. PW-2 was
following the deceased in his two wheeler and he had deposed about the
accident and the negligence of the JCB driver. Therefore, for the default of
the JCB driver not possessing valid driving licence, the Tribunal ought not
to have deduct 10% compensation payable to the claimants. It should have
ordered full compensation to the claimants payable by the Insurance
Company and ought to have given liberty to the Insurance Company to
recover 10% from the owner of the vehicle. Omission to do so is apparently
illegal.
11.Heard the learned counsels appearing for the Insurance Company
as appellant and for the claimants as respondents.
12.The nature of the accident is explained in the First Information
Report as well as in the evidence of PW-2. It has occurred when the
deceased riding his two wheeler hit the JCB moving ahead to him. It is
contended by the Insurance Company, the deceased was not wearing helmet,
therefore the head injury sustained became fatal to his life.
13.We find minor contradiction in the evidence and First Information
Report. If PW-2 was present at the time of accident, there is no explanation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:18 pm )
from him why he did not give the complaint nor statement to the police
regarding accident. The accidence case has been closed as mistake of fact
alleging negligence on the part of the deceased. No protest petition after
RCS notice issued to the first claimant intimating about the closure of the
complaint. There is equally a contradictory evidence regarding negligence.
Further, the failure of the deceased to wear helmet has contributed to his
death.
14.In the said circumstances, we find that the 10% deduction by the
trial Court for the JCB driver failure to hold driving licence and deducting
the same from the compensation payable to the claimants is erroneous.
However, the said deduction of 10% should have been for not wearing the
helmet. In any event, the award amount payable to the claimants will not
change. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire
award amount, if not already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are
permitted to withdraw the award amount. Hence, the appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(G.J.J) (M.S.K.J)
25.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:18 pm )
smv
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order: Yes/No
DR. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
smv
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur.
Pre-delivery Judgment in
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:18 pm )
25.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:18 pm )
