[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
No.5 vs N.K.Mohammed 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. 2620 of 2021
And
C.M.P.No. 15024 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. N.K.Mohammed
S/o. N.K.Kunhahamed
2. Shynaba
W/o. N.K.Mohammed ...1st & 2nd Respondent/Petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:26 pm )
2
3. P.Rajendran
S/o. Pachaiyappan ... 3rd Respondent/1st Respondent
4. P.Jayakumar
S/o. Paramasivam ... 4th Respondent/3rd Respondent
5. ICICI Lumbard Motor Insurance Company Limited
Zenith House, Keshvarao Khade Marge
Mahalakshmi Mumbai,
Mumbai – 400 034. ... 5th Respondent/4th 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. 73 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal cum Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases at
Krishnagiri.
***
For Appellant : Mr. S.Dhakshnamoorthy
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr. R.Sagadevan
For 3rd Respondent : Mr.P.M.Durai Samy
For 5th Respondent : Mr.Micheal Viswasam
for Mr.R.V.Sivaraj
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:26 pm )
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.
2. M.C.O.P.No. 73 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 Nishadh, who died in a motor accident which took place
on 18.01.2010. The deceased Nishadh and his friends Arunkumar 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:26 pm )
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 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, the driver of the
car (Arun Kumar) and also the son of the claimants, Nishadh, died on the
spot and the 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.30,00,000/- 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:26 pm )
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
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-16 and the cash
flow register of the company where the deceased was worked was marked
as Ex.P-19. 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 Arun Kumar had collided on the rear right
side wheel of the Swaraj Mazda Motor Vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:26 pm )
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,
wherein the tortfeaser was mentioned as 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.17,000/-, though it was claimed that it
was Rs.34,102/-. After deducting one half towards personal expenses and
adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income was arrived at
Rs.11,900/-. The multiplier was fixed at Rs.18/-, since the age of the
deceased was 25 years. Amount of Rs.25,70,400/- (Rs.11,900 x 12 x 18)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:26 pm )
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
towards love and affection. A total compensation of Rs.26,35,400/- 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 wherein the deceased was a passenger 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 a passenger collided on the rear right wheel of the
Swaraj Mazda Motor Vehicle. This is an issue on fact. We are of the firm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:26 pm )
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
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.17,000/- even
though evidence had been produced under Exs. P-16 and P-20 that the
monthly salary was Rs.34,102/-. 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.25,70,400/-
2. Loss of Estate = Rs. 20,000/-
3. Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/-
4. Love and Affection = Rs. 30,000/-
----------------
Rs.26,35,400/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:26 pm )
------------------
13. We find no ground to interfere with the well considered Judgment
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
Index: Yes/No (½)
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:26 pm )
And
19.01.2026
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:37:26 pm )
