Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

No.5 vs Shanthi
2026 Latest Caselaw 191 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 191 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 January, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

No.5 vs Shanthi on 19 January, 2026

Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
                                                                        1

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              RESERVED ON                   : 10.12.2025

                                              PRONOUNCED ON :                      19.01.2026


                                                                 CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
                                                 AND
                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU


                                                     C.M.A.No. 2621 of 2021
                                                              And
                                                     C.M.P.No. 15027 of 2021



                     Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
                     No.66, 2nd Floor, City Centre Complex
                     Thirumalaipillai Road
                     Chennai – 600 107.

                     Present address:

                     No.5, Ramachandran Street,
                     Saravana Nagar, Perungudi
                     Chennai – 600 096
                                                                        ... Appellant/2nd Respondent

                                                                      Vs

                     1.           Shanthi
                                  W/o. Jayakumar



                     2.           Jayakumar




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:27 pm )
                                                                       2

                                  S/o. Paramasivam                     ...1st & 2nd Respondent/Petitioners

                     3.           P.Rajendran
                                  S/o. Pachaiyappan                    ... 3rd Respondent/1st Respondent


                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                     Vehicle Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2020 made
                     in M.C.O.P.No. 32 of 2013 on the file of the Special District Court for
                     Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Krishnagiri.
                                                                     ***


                                       For Appellant          : Mr. S.Dhakshnamoorthy

                                       For RR 1 & 2           : Mr. R.Sagadevan

                                       For 3rd Respondent : Mr.P.M.Durai Samy



                                                      JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)

The second respondent, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

in M.C.O.P.No. 32 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Krishnagiri / Special District Court cum Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal at Krishnagiri is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the award dated

29.06.2020.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:27 pm )

2. M.C.O.P.No. 32 of 2013 had been filed by the claim petitioners

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the

death of their son Arunkumar, who died in a motor accident which took

place on 18.01.2010. The deceased Arunkumar and his friends Nishadh and

Ashwath, who were all working in a company called JSLAN Technologies

Pvt Ltd., at Bangalore were travelling in a TATA Indigo Car bearing

Registration No. TN 79 0506 from Hosur to go to Uthangarai on 18.01.2010

after completing their work at Bangalore, to see the parents of Arunkumar.

The car was driven by the deceased Arunkumar. While proceeding in the

Hosur to Krishnagiri National Highways Road, in front of Ashok Leyland

Unit II, a Swaraj Mazda Medium Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.

TN29 J 0461 belonging to the first respondent in the claim petition and

insured with the second respondent/appellant herein driven in a rash and

negligent manner suddenly crossed the National Highway from Ashok

Leyland Unit -II to go to Hosur from north to south and owing to that

sudden crossing of the vehicle, the TATA Indigo car driven by the deceased

Arunkumar was forced to collide with the right rear wheel of the Swaraj

Mazda Medium goods vehicle inspite his best efforts to apply sudden break.

Due to the accident, Arun Kumar and also Nishadh, died on the spot and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:27 pm )

other passenger Aswath suffered serious injuries all over the body. Claiming

that the accident had occurred only owing to the rash and negligent manner

in which the Swaraj Mazda Medium Goods Vehicle was driven, the claim

petition has been filed seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-

together with interest.

3. It had been contended on behalf of the respondents that with

respect to the said accident, an FIR had been registered wherein the driver of

the vehicle the deceased Arun Kumar was categorised as the tortfeaser. It

was also contended that the occupants in the car were under the influence of

alcohol. It was further contended that the quantum of compensation claimed

was excessive. The liability of the driver of the Swaraj Mazda vehicle was

denied and it was claimed that the claimants should prove the same.

4. During trial, the first claimant N.K.Mohammed examined himself

as PW-1. He also examined Asbak, the eye witness as PW-2. With respect

to the employment of the deceased, PW-3 Lavanya, Senior Software

Engineer was examined. The complainant, who had lodged the complaint

leading to the registration of the FIR, P.Ashok Kumar was examined as

PW-4. The true copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.P-1 and the xerox copy

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:27 pm )

of the legal heir certificate was marked as Ex.P-3 and the Insurance Policy

of the first respondent vehicle was marked as Ex.P-4. The documents

relating to the salary of the deceased were marked as Ex.P-13 and the cash

flow register of the company where the deceased was worked was marked

as Ex.P-16. The qualification of the deceased was marked as Ex.P-18. The

driver of the Swaraj Mazda motor vehicle was examined as RW-1. The

Road Transport Office, Junior Assistant was examined as RW-2. The Motor

Vehicle Inspection Report of the Swaraj Mazda motor vehicle was marked

as Ex.P-5.

5. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal had held that the

accident occurred only owing to the sudden entry into the National

Highways from Ashok Leyland Unit-II by the Swaraj Mazda Motor Vehicle,

who joined the road to turn right and owing to the said sudden entry, the

TATA Indigo vehicle driven by the deceased Arun Kumar had collided on

the rear right side wheel of the Swaraj Mazda Motor Vehicle.

6. The evidence was examined in entirety and it was very clearly held

that the accident occurred only owing to the rash and negligent manner in

which the Swaraj Mazda Motor Vehicle was driven. With respect to the FIR,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:27 pm )

wherein the tortfeaser was mentioned as the deceased Arunkumar, the driver

of the Tata Indigo vehicle, the Tribunal found that PW-4, who was the

complainant, had stated that he had only signed on the places where the

police had asked him to sign. He therefore disowned the contents of the

complaint. The Tribunal noted that the respondents had not examined any

police official to speak about the manner in which the complaint was lodged

and FIR was registered. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal held

that no reliance could be placed on the averments made in the complaint and

in the FIR.

7. With respect to the income earned, the Tribunal held that the

Company had been newly formed and therefore, had determined the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-, though it was claimed that it

was Rs.55,633/-. After deducting one half towards personal expenses and

adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income was arrived at

Rs.14,000/-. The multiplier was fixed at Rs.18/-, since the age of the

deceased was 25 years. Amount of Rs.30,24,000/- (Rs.14,000 x 12 x 18)

was awarded for loss of dependency and another sum of Rs.20,000/- was

awarded for the loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded

towards funeral expenses. A further sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:27 pm )

towards love and affection. A total compensation of Rs.30,89,000/- was

awarded. The liability was fixed on the appellant herein/the insurer of the

Swaraj Mazda Motor Vehicle.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant after taking the Court

through the facts of the case pointed out that in the FIR, the driver of the

TATA Indigo Vehicle was shown as the tortfeaser and therefore urged that

the liability should have also been fixed also on the Insurance Company of

the TATA Indigo vehicle. But however, the evidence of PW-4 is very clear

and even if that evidence is to be rejected, the appellants herein had not

examined any police official to speak about the veracity of the complaint

lodged and the FIR registered.

9. The facts relating to the accident make it evident that the accident

occurred only owing to the sudden entry into the National Highways of the

Swaraj Mazda Motor Vehicle owing to which the TATA Indigo vehicle

where the deceased was the driver collided on the rear right wheel of the

Swaraj Mazda Motor Vehicle. This is an issue on fact. We are of the firm

opinion that the Tribunal had come to a correct decision fixing the liability

only on the driver of the Swaraj Mazda Motor Vehicle.

10. A specific issue had been framed by the Tribunal whether the

accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the TATA Indigo

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:27 pm )

vehicle and after examining the facts, the Tribunal had stated that the

accident did not occurr owing to such rash and negligent driving of the

TATA Indigo Vehicle and as a matter of fact had come to a conclusion that

the vehicle was not also driven in a rash and negligent manner.

11. With respect to the quantum of compensation, we hold that the

Tribunal had correctly held that the salary would be only Rs.20,000/- even

though evidence had been produced under Exs. P-13 and P-20 that the

monthly salary was Rs.55,633/-. One half of the amount had been deducted

towards personal expenses and 40% had been added towards future

prospects. The Tribunal had applied the correct multiplier, taking into

consideration the age of the deceased at 25 years. The other heads of

compensation had also been correctly granted by the Tribunal.

12. The compensation granted is :

1. Loss of dependency = Rs.30,24,000/-

2. Loss of Estate = Rs. 20,000/-

3. Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/-

4. Love and Affection = Rs. 30,000/-

----------------

Rs.30,89,000/-

------------------

13. We find no ground to interfere with the well considered Judgment

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:27 pm )

of the Tribunal. The Appeal stands dismissed confirming the award granted

by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands

closed. No order as to costs.

                                                                      [C.V.K., J.]             [K.B., J.]
                                                                                  19.01.2026
                                                                                       (2/2)
                     Index: Yes/No
                     Internet:Yes/No
                     Neutral Citation: Yes/No


                                                                                   C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
                                                                                                 AND
                                                                                  K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

                                                                                                            vsg


                     To:

Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Krishnagiri.

Pre-Delivery Judgment made in

And

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:27 pm )

19.01.2026

(2/2)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:27 pm )

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter