M/S Cholamandalam Ms General vs Kavitha
2026 Latest Caselaw 1770 Mad

Madras High Court

M/S Cholamandalam Ms General vs Kavitha on 10 April, 2026

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                                  C.M.A.No.1456 of 2025


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              Reserved on : 06.02.2026

                                            Pronounced on : 10.04.2026

                                                      CORAM

                   THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

                          C.M.A.No.1456 of 2025 and C.M.P. Nos.12568 and 26275 of 2025

                  M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited
                  “Dare House” II Floor,
                  No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road,
                  Chennai 600 001                                                    …Appellant
                                                    Vs.
                  1.Kavitha
                  2.Ramesh
                  3.Vijay Akshay                                               … Respondents


                  Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
                  Vehicles Act,1988, against the Award dated 04.03.2024 made in M.C.O.P
                  No.688 of 2021 on the file of the Special District Court for Motor Accident
                  Claims Cases, Krishnagiri.

                                  For Appellant      : Mr. J. Michael Visuvasam


                                  For Respondents    : Mr. C. Santhosh Kumar


                  1/10




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 C.M.A.No.1456 of 2025




                                                      JUDGMENT

This Appeal is directed against the Award dated 04.03.2024 made in

M.C.O.P No.688 of 2021 on the file of the Special District Court for Motor

Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their

ranking in the Tribunal.

3. Shortly stated, on 09.04.2021, at about 02.00 hours, when the

deceased Ruthick was proceeding in his Bajaj Pulsar two wheeler bearing

Registration No. TN-70-AE-5855 from Ambur to his native place, on

Krishnagiri to Hosur Road, near Melumalai Forest Area, an unknown vehicle

hit behind the vehicle of the deceased and ran away from the scene of

occurrence, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the

spot. Since the place of occurrence was the centre of forest area, there was no

electrical lights and nobody has seen the occurrence. Some Truck drivers

informed the police about the death of the deceased. The police officials

obtained complaint from the deceased’s father. Since the police officials were

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

unable to trace out the unknown vehicle, they obtained signature from the

deceased’s father, who does not know tamil, and created a false story as

against the deceased. The Gurubarapalli Police have registered a case in

Cr.No.75/2021 under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC as against the driver of

unknown vehicle. The respondent is the insurer of the deceased’s two wheeler

and he paid compulsory personal accident owner cum driver premium. Hence,

the petitioners who are the parents and brother of the deceased, filed the above

Claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest at the rate

of 12% per annum from the date of accident and for costs.

4. The claim was opposed by the respondent / Insurance Company by

stating that since the claim being that of the death of owner/insured, the

alleged question of insurer being liable does not arise at all and that the

petitioners, who claim compensation for the death of the deceased,who is the

owner of the two wheeler involved in the accident, have to present the claim

form for compensation before the respondent in person by not pressing the

claim petition. It is further stated that, since it is alleged that the deceased

was the owner of Bajaj Pulsar two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-70-

AE-5855, the risk to such a person is not required to be covered under Section

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the

conclusion that, as per Ex.P5, which is a package policy, the deceased had

paid premium towards personal accident coverage and the sum assured is

Rs.15,00,000/- and hence the respondent is liable to pay a sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioners together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

6. Aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company is on appeal. According to

the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the Tribunal ought not to have

entertained the claim for the death of the deceased who was the owner of the

motorcycle, contrary to the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles

Act and that the Tribunal ought to have relegated the petitioners to the

appropriate forum in respect of the claim arising under the ‘Personal Accident

Coverage’ being a contractual liability. He further submitted that the deceased

had only a Learner’s License, which specifically prohibits the ‘learner’ from

driving any motor vehicle unless he has besides him a person duly licenced to

drive the vehicle, and as such he was not entitled to any compensation even

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

under ‘Personal Accident Coverage’. He would further submit that the

Tribunal erred in granting interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum when the

contract does not envisages any interest for ‘Personal Accident Cover’ and that

the Award of the Tribunal is in excess of its jurisdiction and also contrary to

the terms and conditions of the contract of Insurance. The learned counsel

would submit that the owner cum insured cannot approach the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal by filing a Claim Petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained by him relying upon the personal

accident cover. This does not prevent the owner of the vehicle, who has taken

the personal accident cover, from claiming compensation from his insurer.

However, the Claims Tribunal is not the forum, before which he can make his

claim, as he is not a third party. It is open to the owner of the vehicle to

directly approach the insurer on the basis of the personal accident cover. In

case, the Insurance Company fails to compensate him, it is well open to him

to approach the Consumer Forum or any other appropriate forum. In support

of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shanmugam reported in

2024 (2) TN MAC 305 (DB). Hence, prays for setting aside the Award passed

by the Tribunal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/petitioners relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Manjusha and others vs. United India Assurance Company

Limited and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1512 would submit

that, the ground of limited liability was not raised by the Insurance Company

before the Tribunal and hence the same has to be dismissed. His further

contention is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 01.08.2025 in

SLP (Civil) Nos 15447-48 of 2024 (Wakis Afrin (Minor) vs. National

Insurance Co. Ltd.) opined that the issue concerning the liability of the

insurer in a claim under Section 163A qua the owner / insured requires an

authoritative pronouncement since there was a conflicting decisions by

Coordinate Benches of two judges and directed the Registry to place the same

before the larger Bench for appropriate orders. Therefore, the principles laid

down in the judgment cited on the side of the learned counsel for the appellant

cannot be applied.

8. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9.It is not in dispute that the deceased Ruthick was the owner of the

motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-70-AE-5855 and when he was

proceeding near Melumalai Forest Area, he was hit by an unknown vehicle.

Due to the said impact, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries and

died on the spot. The parents of the deceased have filed a claim petition in

MCOP No.688 of 2021 on the file of the Special District Court for Motor

Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri, under Section 163A of the Motor

Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest. The

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioners together with

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the

dated of deposit. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed by the

Insurance Company. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant / Insurance Company is that the Tribunal ought not to have

entertained the claim petition since it is contrary to the provisions of Section

147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,and the petitioners ought to have been

relegated to the appropriate forum in respect of the claim arising under the

personal accident coverage being a contractual liablity. Admittedly, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the issue as to whether the legalheirs of

the vehicle owners, who died in accidents, can be allowed compensation under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

'no fault liability' provisions (Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988)

or if such claims are limited solely to third party liability. This Court in the

case of Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shanmugam

(cited supra) has held that the owner / insured, not being a third party, is not

entitled to claim compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the injuries sustained by

him relying upon the personal accident coverage and the said principles laid

down in that case is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the

owner/insured or the legal heirs of the deceased owner cannot approach the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing a petition under 163A of the MV

Act, for the injuries / death, relying upon the personal accident cover.

However, they can approach the insurer on the basis of personal accident

cover. In case the Insurance Company fails to compensate the claimants, it is

well open to them to approach the consumer forum or any other appropriate

forum as observed in the above cited case. Further, in the Judgment in the

case of Manjusha and others vs. United India Assurance Company Limited

and another (cited supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the

respondents/petitioners, the plea of limited liability was neither raised before

the Tribunal nor in the Memorandum of Appeal and hence, the Hon'ble

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Supreme Court allowed the appeal preferred by the claimants. But, in the case

on hand, the Insurance Company has raised the question of limited liability in

the Memorandum of Appeal. Hence, the said decision is not applicable to the

facts of the present case.

10. In view of the above discussions, the present Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions

are closed. The Award dated 04.03.2024 made in M.C.O.P No.688 of 2021 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court for

Motor Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri, is set aside. It is open to the

respondents/petitioners to directly approach the insurer on the basis of the

personal accident cover. In case, the Insurance Company fails to compensate

them, it is well open to them to approach the Consumer Forum or any other

appropriate forum.

10.04.2026

bga

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

bga

To The Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri.

Pre delivery Judgment in C.M.A.No.1456 of 2025 and C.M.P. Nos.12568 and 26275 of 2025

10.04.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis