Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs / on 15 October, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.A.No.4214 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.M.A.No.4214 of 2019
& C.M.P.No.25369 of 2025 in Cros.Obj.SR.No.56631 of 2024
& C.M.P.No.23836 of 2019
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, Vellore. ... Appellant
/versus/
1. M.Kamaraj, (died)
2. G.Ramu,
3. Vijayalakshmi,
4. Minor Lokesh,
5. Minor Siusindran,
(Minors Rep. by their mother & natural guardian Mrs.Vijayalakshmi)
6. Muthaiyan.
7. Saraswathi. ... Respondents
R3 to R7 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 viz., M.Kamaraj vide Court order
dated 27.09.2019 made in CMP.No.13037 of 2019 in C.M.A.SR.No.94074 of 2017 (KKSJ
and AQJ).
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 16 th day of
August 2016, made in M.C.O.P.No.228 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Cheyyar.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:01 pm )
C.M.A.No.4214 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban,
for Mr.PRS.Thamizhmani,
for R3, R5 to R7
: Died, for R1
: No appearance, for R2
C.M.P.No.25369 of 2025 in Cros.Obj.SR.No.56631 of 2024
1. K. Vijayalakshmi,
2. Minor Lokesh,
3. Minor Suseendran,
(Minors represented by their mother & natural guardianVijayalakshmi)
4.Saraswathi. ... Petitioners/Respondents 3
to 5 & 7
/versus/
1. The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, Vellore.
2. G.Ramu. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order IV Rule 9(4) of Rules,
to condone the delay of 446 days delay in representing the above Cross Appeal
in S.R.No.56631 of 2024.
For Appellant : Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban,
For Respondents : Mr.J.Chandran, for R1
***
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:01 pm )
C.M.A.No.4214 of 2019
JUDGMENT
On 04.10.2006, a primary school teacher, while returning to his
house after attended election-instruction duty, hit the stationed lorry and
sustained severe injuries which has crippled him and disabled him physically
from attending his job from the date of accident. He underwent treatment in
various hospitals and, in fact, died on 13.11.2015. A claim petition was filed
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Cheyyar by the insured and same
was considered by the Court awarded Rs.19,99,694/- with 7.5 % interest.
2. The Insurance Company has preferred the appeal stating that the
accident took place due to the negligence of the injured claimant. It is
contended that he in a drunken state driven the two-wheeler and hit the
stationed lorry which was parked on the road margin. According to the insurer,
this fact been spoken by the witnesses and the FIR lodged by the wife of the
claimant six months after the accident also could clearly proves that the
claimant is not entitled for any compensation for the accident which was caused
by himself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:01 pm )
3. Further, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company submitted that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier method for
awarding compensation, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. The
percentage of disability ascertained by the Doctor is 70%. In such
circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have been assessed the nature of injury, its
impact on the earning capacity and should have fixed the compensation. In this
case, the claimant has not placed any evidence to show that, due to the accident,
he had incurred the loss of income. While so, the application of multiplier is
per se improper. By that time, the appeal was filed and even before the award
could be passed, the claimant passed away. Hence, the appellant has brought on
record the legal heirs of the claimant as respondents.
4. The dependants of the deceased claimant are his wife, two children
and mother. After notice, the legal heirs of the deceased claimant had taken out
an application for enhancement of compensation by way of Cross Objection,
with substantial delay.
5. The contention of the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
legal heirs of the claimant is that the accident has crippled the claimant
obsoletely and he was not able to attend the office after the accident. He was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:01 pm )
bedridden and under continuous treatment till his death. Therefore, the death is
to be attributed to the accident though there is a long gap between the date of
accident (04.10.2006) and the date of death (13.11.2015). Therefore, the
Learned Counsel submits that the computation of loss of income which was
reduced to 70% has to be reconsider. It is argued that the multiplier method
should be applied without any reduction and also 50% towards further
prospects should be added towards loss of income. Further, the Learned
Counsel submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss
of consortium, love and affection, which should be awarded and the
compensation should be enhanced.
6. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. The
evidence placed before the Court clearly proves the fact that on 04.10.2006, the
claimant, while returning from duty had met with an accident and from that day
onwards, he was under medical care. In his evidence, on 13.08.2013, he had
specifically stated that after the accident, he was unable to attend the office and
he is in loss of pay. The Learned Counsel has also produced documents
indicating that on the death of the claimant, his prolong absence has been
regularised after adjusting the leave available. However, there is no evidence to
show that he was drawing monthly salary after the date of the accident. No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:01 pm )
suggestion putforth during the cross-examination to disprove the assertion
made by the claimant regarding his loss of pay. Therefore, we hold that the
application of multiplier in this case is justifiable. The only point further to be
considered is whether the reduction of loss of income to 70% is proper, when
there is material to show that the claimant has lost 100% of his income due to
the accident.
7. In this regard, this Court has taken into consideration the
submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company that the claimant had contributed for the accident. Firstly, he had
driving an insured vehicle. Secondly, he was in drunken state as found in the
medical record. Finally, he has hit a stationed lorry parked on the road margin.
Thus, negligence on the part of the claimant is established and proved through
documents.
8. In said circumstances, the reduction of 30% in the income has to
be attributed to contribution for the accident. Regarding future prospects, it is
pertinent to note that the accident has caused only injury and disability but not
death. The accident though had deprived the salary, the other service benefits
conferred to a Government Servant not been taken away and there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:01 pm )
evidence to show that the service benefits been deprived to the claimant.
9. On careful consideration of the submissions and the evidence
placed, we find that the claimant's contributory negligence and his drunken
state has played a predominant role in the incident. In the light of above, we are
not inclined to entertain the cross-objection seeking enhancement of
compensation and confirmed the award passed by the Tribunal.
10. The legal heirs of the claimant, who are arrayed as respondents 3,
4, 5 & 7 are entitled to get the award amount with interest at the rate of 7.5%
p.a., from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation. The
total award amount shall be equally distributed equally between the
respondents 3, 4, 5 & 7.
11. The Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted
that the entire award has already been deposited while preferring the appeal. If
that is so, the balance award amount, along with interest at the rate of 7.5%
p.a., from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization, to be
deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. On such deposit, the respondents 3, 4, 5 & 7 shall entitled to get the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:01 pm )
award amount equally along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
12. Accordingly, this C.M.A.No.4214 of 2019 is partly allowed and
C.M.P.No.25369 of 2025 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[Dr.G.J., J.] & [M.S.K., J.]
15.10.2025
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
bsm
To,
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Cheyyar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:01 pm )
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR., J.
bsm
& C.M.P.No.25369 of 2025 in Cros.Obj.SR.No.56631 of 2024
15.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:01 pm )
