[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Branch Manager vs Saroja on 12 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
C.M.A(MD)No.611 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.M.A(MD)Nos.611 of 2022
and
CMP (MD) No.5266 of 2022
Branch Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Sri Lakshmi Complex,
First Floor, Bharathi Street,
Omalur Main Road,
Swarnapuram,
Salem District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Saroja
2. Karthikeyan (Died)
3. Amarnath
4. Sumithra
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 11:49:09 am )
C.M.A(MD)No.611 of 2022
5. P.Mohan
6. Gowri Karthikeyan
7. K. Vinitha ... Respondents
(R6 & R7 are brought on record as Lrs
vide order dated 21.11.2025)
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
MCOP.No.5505 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special District Judge),Tiruchirappalli dated 29.10.2021.
For Appellant : Ms.K.R.Shivashankari
For Respondents : Mr.R.Yamuna for R1, R3 and R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)
The insurance company has filed the present appeal against the
award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District
Judge), Tiruchirappalli, dated 29.10.2021.
2. The respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants and they filed the
claim petition on the ground that the deceased, Ganesan, who was the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 11:49:09 am )
husband of the first respondent and the father of respondents 2 to 4, was
riding a two-wheeler on 20.07.2013 and when the vehicle was coming
near Rail Nagar, Ariyamangalam at about 21.50 hours, the offending
vehicle which is the tanker lorry was driven in a rash and negligent
manner and it hit the two-wheeler from behind and as a result, the rider
of the two-wheeler was thrown off the vehicle and sustained grievous
head injuries and multiple injuries all over the body. He was taken to the
hospital but however he succumbed to the injuries. It is under these
circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to
the conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal fixed the total
compensation payable at Rs.35,31,290/- and deducted 20% towards
contributory negligence and thus fixed the total compensation at Rs.
28,25,032/- to be paid along with interest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 11:49:09 am )
4. Aggrieved by the above award, the insurance company has
filed the present appeal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal erred in
computing the loss of income by not applying the split multiplier.
According to the insurance company, the deceased was aged about 58
years and he had only two years of service left out and hence, the
Tribunal ought to have applied the split multiplier.
5. The ground that has been taken by the insurance company is
unsustainable and useful reference can be made to the latest judgment in
Preetha Krishnan & Ors., v. United India Insurance Ltd., reported in
2026 (1) TN MAC 145. The Tribunal was perfectly right in rejecting the
claim made by the insurance company for applying the split multiplier.
6. We have carefully gone through the award passed by the
Tribunal and we find that the findings have been rendered by the
Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence and the compensation fixed
by the Tribunal is also just and reasonable. Therefore, it does not warrant
interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 11:49:09 am )
7. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands
dismissed. The entire amount has already been deposited when this Court
entertained this appeal. Hence, the same can be permitted to be
withdrawn along with the accrued interest based on the apportionment
made by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[N.A.V., J.] [P.D.B., J.]
12.03.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
PKN
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special District Judge),
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Record Keeper (Vernacular Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 11:49:09 am )
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
AND
P.DHANABAL,J.
PKN
12.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 11:49:09 am )
