[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs P.Suresh (Died) on 6 January, 2026
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 05.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CMA No. 2087 of 2021
And
C.M.P.No. 11365 of 2021
And
CMA No. 810 of 2020
And
C.M.P.No. 5208 of 2020
C.M.A.No. 2087 of 2021
The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Company Limited
No.22, BPR Sundram Iyer Street
Dharmapuri – 636 701.
... Appellant/Respondent - IV
Vs
P.Suresh (died)
S/o. Pandian
1. Malathi
W/o. Late Suresh
2. Minor Priyadharshini
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
2
D/o. Late Suresh
3. Minor Priyadharshan
S/o. Late Suresh
4. Kala
W/o. Pandian
5. Pandian
S/o. Perumal
...Respondents 1-5/Respondents 1 -5
6. P.Sathish
S/o. Pandian
... Respondent 6/Respondent
7. The National Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office X,
Hero Honda Vertical 101-106,
BMC House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondent 7 /Respondent-7
8. P.Ramesh Babu
S/o. Pandian ... Respondent 8/Respondent 8
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.
390 of 2017 on 09.09.2019 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), Hosur.
***
For Appellant : Mr. J.Chandran
For RR 1 to 5 : Mr. C.Munusamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
3
For 7th Respondent: Mr.S.Arun Kumar
C.M.A.No. 810 of 2020
The National Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office X,
Hero Honda Vertical 101-106,
BMC House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... 2nd respondent/Appellant
Vs
P.Suresh (died)
S/o. Pandian ... Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 5
1. Malathi
W/o. Late Suresh
2. Minor Priyadharshini
D/o. Late Suresh
3. Minor Priyadharshan
S/o. Late Suresh
4. Kala
W/o. Pandian
5. Pandian
S/o. Perumal
6. P.Sathish
S/o. Pandian
... 1st Respondent to 6th Respondent
7. P.Ramesh Babu ... 3rd Respondent /7th Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
4
8. The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Company Limited
No.22, BPR Sundram Iyer Street
Dharmapuri – 636 701.
... 4th Respondent/8th Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the award dated 09.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.
390 of 2017 on 09.09.2019 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), Hosur.
***
For Appellant : Mr. S.Arun Kumar
For 1st Respondent : Mr. C.Munusamy
For 8th Respondent: Mr.J.Chandran
COMMONJUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise from the award dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
5
09.09.1990 in M.C.O.P.No. 390 of 2017 on the file of the MACT, Additional
District Court, Hosur.
2. C.M.A.No. 810 of 2020 had been filed by the second respondent /
the National Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi. C.M.A.No. 2087 of
2021 had been filed by the fourth respondent, the Branch Manager, United
India Insurance Company Ltd., Dharmapuri.
3. M.C.O.P.No. 390 of 2017 had been filed by P.Suresh under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 for injuries suffered in an accident on
20.06.2016 at about 18.30 hours in Krishangiri to Dharmapuri National
Highways Road, opposite to Bysuhalli PACB. The accident occurred when
the petitioner was preceding in a Hero Splendour Plus motor cycle
belonging to the first respondent, P.Sathish, his brother under course of
employment while taking the spares of the lorry belonging to his own
brother. The lorry had broken down. Owing to the accident, the following
injuries had been sustained:-
1. Fracture of cervical vertebra + + + and
unstable spine.
2. Fracture of C4 & C5 vertebra bodies
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
6
with bilateral facetal joint sub lexation with focal
cord compression cordedema and cord
hemorrhage.
4. It was stated that the injuries had caused permanent disability.
During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner died and his legal
representatives have been brought on record. The petition was therefore
suitably amended seeking compensation for the death due to accident of the
first petitioner.
5. A counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent stating that the
petitioner did not notice a stray dog crossing the road and skidded and fell
down and sustained injuries. The petitioner was working as Lorry driver
under Thirumurugan Transports, Dharmapuri. The lorry was owned by the
first respondent. The motorcycle was also owned by the first respondent.
The lorry bearing registration No. Ka-01-AB-3020 had a break down
between Krishnagiri to Dharmapuri. The motor cycle bearing registration
bearing No. TN-29-BC-5181 was insured with the second respondent /
National Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi. The lorry was insured with
the fourth respondent/United India Insurance Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
7
6. The second respondent/National Insurance Company had filed a
counter affidavit stating that with respect to the accident, FIR in Crime No.
393 of 2018 had been registered under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC
byKarimangalam Police Station and was closed on 10.01.2018 under
Section 468 Cr.P.C. The petitioner Suresh died on 09.02.2018 during the
pendency of the injury claim. It was denied that the accident occurred in the
course of employment. It was denied that the second respondent was liable
to pay compensation for the death of the petitioner. It has been stated that
he died owing to his own tort and no other vehicle was involved in the
accident.
7. The fourth respondent also filed a counter affidavit stating that the
Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01-3020 suffered a break down and the
accident of the petitioner occurred when a stray dog suddenly crossed the
road and the petitioner skidded and fell down on the road. It was stated that
the entire claim was false and that he died owing to rash and negligent
driving. It had been stated that the fourth respondent was not liable to pay
any compensation. The Tribunal by an award dated 09.09.2019 had directed
the second and fourth respondents to pay compensation at Rs.36,04,456/- to
the petitioners. The second respondent was liable to pay compensation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
8
40% and the fourth respondent was liable to pay compensation of 60%.
Challenging that particular award, the present Appeals had been filed by the
second respondent and the by the fourth respondent.
8. The learned counsels for the two appellants argued that the
accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent self driving of the
deceased. It was pointed out that though the accident was said to have
occurred on 20.06.2016, the complaint was lodged only on 27.07.2016,
after more than 45 days from the date of the accident. The claim that the
petitioner died during the course of his employment was denied. It was
stated that the entire claim of the petitioner is based on falsity. Both the
learned counsels contended that there employer and employee relationship
was not established for the claim to be given by the Insurance Company of
the lorry. It was also claimed that since the petitioner died while driving in a
rash and negligent manner, the insurance company of the motorcycle was
also not liable to pay any compensation. The claim that the accident
occurred since a stray dog crossed the road was vehemently denied and
disputed.
9. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner however pointed out
the facts of the case and argued that the accident occurred only to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
9
crossing of stray dog when the deceased was driving in a motorcycle insured
with the second respondent while in the course of employment taking spare
parts of the lorry which was insured with the fourth respondent as the lorry
had suffered a break down. The learned counsel stated that the Tribunal had
considered all material facts and therefore stated that both the Appeals
should be dismissed.
10. During the course of argument, reference was also made by the
learned counsels for the appellants to the accident register which stated that
the accident occurred owing to self fall from two wheeler.
11. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and
perused the materials available on records.
12. The petitioner P.Suresh, who was in a coma stage at the time of
filing of the petition had claimed compensation for injuries suffered while
driving motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-29-BC-5181 in the
Krishnagiri to Dharmapuri National Highway Road, Byshuvalli PACB.
During the course of the petition, he died and his legal representatives have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
10
been brought on record. The accident occurred on 20.06.2016. The accident
register which had been marked as Exs. P-2 show that the accident occurred
owing to self fall. Subsequently on 27.07.2016, a complaint had been
lodged with the Karimangalam police station and in the complaint, it had
been stated that the petitioner, who subsequently died was driving the
motorcycle since the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01-3020 had
suffered a break down and he was carrying the spare parts. It was contended
that he therefore died during the course of employment.
13. In the FIR, it had been stated that a stray dog crossed the street
and as a result of which, the motorcycle skidded and he fell down and
suffered serious injuries. The nature of the injuries were as follows:-
1. Fracture of cervical vertebra + + + and unstable spine.
2. Fracture of C4 & C5 vertebra bodies with
bilateral facetal joint sub lexation with focal cord
compression cordedema and cord hemorrhage.
14. The Tribunal had held that by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2,
the fact that the deceased was travelling in the motorcycle had been
established and that he so travelled only to purchase spare parts for the lorry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
11
belonging to the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent.
He was proceeding in the two wheeler belonging to the first respondent as
instructed by the first respondent. It was therefore held that owing to the
said accident, the insurance companies for the motorcycle and the lorry were
liable to pay the compensation claimed.
15. During the course of arguments, no contention had been raised
regarding the quantum but however, very serious objections have been
raised about the genuinity of the claim.
16. The points for determination are whether the deceased died
during the course of employment and whether he died owing to self
skidding of the motorcycle.
17. According to the FIR, Ex.P-1, the petitioner while driving the
motorcycle had skidded when a stray dog crossed the road. He fell down.
Though it is too remote to find out whether the said fact is right or wrong, it
is a fact the petitioner had skidded and fell down. Whether it was owing to
the stray dog or not is a mute question. The motorcycle was insured with
the second respondent. The other aspect is that he was going to purchase
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
12
spare parts for the lorry which had a suffered break down.
18. It is contended that the lorry was owned by the first and third
respondents. There are no document produced to show that the petitioner
was employed either by the first or the third respondents. The petitioner, the
first and third respondents are all brothers. There is no dispute that the first
respondent was the owner of the motorcycle and the first and third
respondents were the joint owners of the lorry. The fact whether the
petitioner was employed under them has not been established, but however,
it had been established that he had suffered a fall and which falling down
had suffered from serious injuries. It is very unfortunate that the first and
second respondents, who claimed to be the owners of the motorcycle and the
joint owners of the lorries have not tendered evidence to state that the
deceased was under their employment.
19. On the other hand, PW-2, who claimed to be authorised by the
first respondent had tendered evidence. His evidence is wholly
unsatisfactorily. No document had been produced to show that the petitioner
was actually employed either the first respondent or under the first and third
respondent jointly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
13
20. PW-1 was widow of the petitioner but the best evidence in this
regard should have been the statements of either the first respondent or the
third respondent. For some unknown reasons, though they were brothers of
the deceased, they had not come forward to tender evidence. In such
circumstances, it will be extremely difficult and in the absence of any
material to hold that the deceased petitioner was under the employment of
the first respondent or under the third respondent. The point framed in that
regard is answered accordingly.
21. The appellants have not questioned the quantum granted. The
claimants have also not filed any appeal questioning the quantum granted.
However, there is no dispute that the deceased died due to self skidding.
The policy does not disclose Personal Accident Cover. The second point is
answered that the deceased died owing to self skidding and since there was
no Personal Accident Cover, the appellants cannot be held liable.
22. Both the Appeals are allowed. The directions issued by the
Tribunal regarding compensation and apportionment of compensation are
set aside. The appellants are entitled for return of any amount deposited. No
order as to costs.
[C.V.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
06.01.2026
Index: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
14
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To:
Additional District Court
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hosur.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
vsg
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
And
And
And
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
06.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 05:40:12 pm )
