[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Rajendiran … vs Girija on 6 January, 2026
C.M.A.No.1698 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 06.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
C.M.A.No. 1698 of 2025 and
C.M.P. No.14925 of 2025
Rajendiran …Appellant
Vs.
1. Girija
2. Periyasamy
3. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Pvt. Limited
12H2035, 15th Main Road,
Anna Nagar (West),
Chennai 600 101 …Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act,1988, against the judgment and Award dated 24.01.2025 made in
MCOP No.89 of 2023, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Court), Ariyalur.
For Appellant : Mr. P. Mani
For Respondents : Mr. S. Kamadevan for R1
Mr. P. Suresh Srinivasan for R3
R2 – No appearance.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 04:13:54 pm )
C.M.A.No.1698 of 2025
JUDGMENT
This Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by
the appellant / 3rd respondent in MCOP No.89 of 2023, on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Ariyalur, for
enhancement of the sum awarded and assailing the apportionment made by the
claims tribunal.
2. The deceased Prabhakaran was earning Rs.95,000/- per month by
way of owner-cum-driver of lorry and was also doing agriculture. On
29.01.2023, at about 9.45 p.m. the deceased was driving the Splender Plus two
wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 49 L 3146 and while proceeding on the
Sathamangalam-Thirumannur NH Road, a Tractor attached with tipper bearing
Registration No. TN 32 T 3188 owned by the 1 st respondent and driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased vehicle, as
a result of which the said Prabhakaran died on the spot. At the relevant point
of time, the said vehicle was insured with the 2 nd respondent. The legal
representatives of the deceased preferred a claim petition for awarding them a
total sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the loss caused to them due to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 04:13:54 pm )
the death of deceased Prabhakaran, claiming them to be dependants of the
deceased. By the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has accepted the
claim of the claimants in part and awarded a total sum of Rs.13,53,170/- in
favour of the claimants against the respondents, after deducting 30% for
deceased's contributory negligence. Further, the learned Tribunal, in the total
award amount apportioned a sum of Rs.53,170/- to the appellant / 3 rd
respondent. Aggrieved by this, the appellant / 3rd defendant is on appeal.
3. Mr.P. Mani, the learned counsel for the appellant / 3 rd respondent
submits that the learned Tribunal erroneously fixed the monthly income of the
deceased notionally at Rs.15,000/- per month in spite sufficient evidence was
produced to prove the avocation and the income of the deceased. His further
contention is that the alleged accident took place solely due to the negligence
of the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle who parked the vehicle at no
parking area without any indicator and that the accident took place during the
night hours. He would submit that once the substantive evidence before the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal established that the offending vehicle had
been parked on the road at night without any reflectors, the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal cannot proceed on the basis of conjecture in arriving at a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 04:13:54 pm )
finding of contributory negligence. To support his contention he has relied on
the following judgments:
1. Judgment dated 20.11.2024 of the High Court of Delhi in
MAC APP.469 of 2023 (Meenu Attery & others vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., and others)
2. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.12.2019
in Civil Appeal No.9343 of 2019 (Jumani Begum vs. Ram
Narayan & others.
3. Judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Bench at Jaipur dated 29.03.2022 made inS.B. Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.2778/2019 (Smt. Bharosi Bai Alias Ram
Bharosi Bai and others vs. Radhey Shyam and others)
He would further contend that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a paltry
sum of Rs.53,170/- towards the appellant's share out of the total compensation
of Rs.13,53,170/-. He would also contend that the tribunal failed to award
compensation towards future prospects.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd
respondent / Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 04:13:54 pm )
deducted 30% as contributory negligence of the deceased not only on the basis
of dashing against the parked vehicle but also on the ground that the deceased
had no valid license to drive the two wheeler at the time of accident. Hence,
fixing 30% contribution on the side of the deceased towards his negligence is
factually and legally correct, which requires any interference by this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent / claimant would submit
that if there is any enhancement in the award passed by the Tribunal, the same
can be apportioned towards the appellant's share.
6. Heard on both sides. Records perused.
7. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was parked on the road
without any reflectors and the alleged accident took place during night hours.
As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Claims
Tribunal erroneously proceeded on the basis of conjectures in arriving at
findings of contributory negligence. There is nothing on record to show that
the deceased was negligent to any extent. Therefore, I accept the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant / 3rd respondent in this regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 04:13:54 pm )
Admittedly, the deceased had no driving license to drive a two wheeler at the
time of the alleged accident. Therefore, in such circumstances, this Court fixes
10% contribution on the side of the deceased for not having proper driving
license at the time of the accident. Moreover, on perusal of the impugned
award of the Claims Tribunal, it is seen that no amount was granted towards
future prospects. Therefore, considering the age of the deceased and applying
the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and
others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601, 40% is added towards future
prospects. The Tribunal has rightly fixed the notional income of the deceased
at Rs.15,000/- since there is no proof of income and the same does not require
any interference. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
Calculation
Notional Income = Rs.15,000/-
40% Future Prospects = Rs.21,000/-
After 1/3 deduction = Rs.14,000/-
Loss of dependency
= Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 15
= Rs.25,20,000/-
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, under various heads, is modified by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 04:13:54 pm )
this Court as follows:
S. Description Amount Amount Modification
No. awarded by awarded by
Tribunal this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
1. Loss of 18,00,000/- 25,20,000/- enhanced
Income
2. Loss of Estate 18,150/- -
3. Consortium 96,800/- 88,000/- reduced
4. Funeral 18,150/- 16,500/- reduced
Expenses
Total 19,33,100/- 26,24,500/-
13,53,170/- 23,62,050/- Enhanced by
(after (after Rs.10,08,880/-
deducting deducting
30% 10%
contributory contributory
negligence negligence
9. In the result,
i.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ii.The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.23,62,050/- from Rs.13,53,170/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 04:13:54 pm )
iii.The appellant is directed to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation
amount, if any, and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after
receipt of Court fee.
iv.The 3rd respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.23,62,050/-(less the amount already deposited) with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
deposit, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, in the first instance, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.89
of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal
District Court, Ariyalur, and then recover the same from the owner of
the vehicle under the same cause of action.
v.The enhanced compensation amount is apportioned to the share of the
appellant apart from the amount apportioned to him in the Tribunal.
vi.On such deposit being made, the appellant and the 1st respondent /
claimant are at liberty to withdraw their share with costs and interest,
after filing a proper petition for withdrawal.
06.01.2026
bga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 04:13:54 pm )
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur,
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 04:13:54 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
bga
C.M.A.No. 1698 of 2025 and
06.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 04:13:54 pm )
