[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Karmegam on 17 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
C.M.A(MD) No.353 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 17.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.M.A(MD) No.353 of 2026
and
CMP(MD)No. 3314 of 2026
The Branch Manager
M/s.Cholamandalam MS General Insurance company Ltd.,
No.446/2, New No.330, PH High Road,
EVR Periyar High Court,
Arumbakkam, Chennai ... Appellant
-vs-
1. Karmegam
2. Divya
3. Minor. Gokulan
(Third respondent rep. by his mother R1)
4.M.Jothi
5. S.Sadasivan
6. S.Kandammal ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the order made in MCOP No. 842
of 2020 dated 09.08.2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal cum Special District Court to deal with MCOP cases,
Tiruchirappalli.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
C.M.A(MD) No.353 of 2026
For Appellant : Mr.N.Shyllappakalyan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.N.Padmaboopathy
For R6 : Mr.V.S.Rishikesh
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.DHANABAL, J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the order
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District
Court to deal with MCOP cases, Tiruchirappalli., in MCOP No. 842 of
2020 dated 09.08.2023.
2. The appellant is the second respondent in the claim petition
and the respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed a claim petition for
compensation for a sum of Rs 75 lakhs for the death of one Kumar in a
road accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,24,300/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization by directing the second respondent to pay the amount.
Aggrieved by the said award, the second respondent/Insurance
company has preferred this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
3. The respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed a petition before the
Tribunal alleging that the deceased Kumar is the husband of the first
petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3 and son of the
respondents 3 and 4 in the original petition. While so, on 13.05.2020 at
about 22.30 hrs, the said Kumar was proceeding on a two wheeler
bearing Reg.No.TN-48-AH-6527 on the Madurai-Chennai bypass road
opposite to EB office Manapuram and at that time, a vehicle bearing
Reg.No.TN-10-BF-6289 which belongs to the first respondent insured
with the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the motor cycle driven by Kumar, as a result of which,
the said Kumar was thrown out from the vehicle and he sustained
injuries all over the body and he died on the way to hospital. The
accident took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the first
respondent and already a case was registered in Crime No.61 of 2010 as
against the driver of the first respondent. The deceased Kumar was
employed as Village Administrative Officer and he was drawing a
salary of Rs.33,314/- per month and also receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/-
as bonus and therefore, the petitioners claimed Rs.75 lakhs as
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
4. The second respondent before the Tribunal who is the appellant
herein has filed a counter denying averments made in the petition.
According to the second respondent, the accident took place due to
negligence on the part of the deceased and the first respondent in the
main petition drove the vehicle in the normal speed by observing the
traffic rules and the deceased only suddenly crossed the road and
thereby, the accident occurred. The driver of the first respondent had no
valid licence at the time of accident and thereby, the second respondent
is not liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent also
denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and therefore,
without prejudice the above contention raised by the respondent, the
claim made is highly excessive.
5. The respondents 3 and 4 also filed counter stating that the
deceased Kumar is their son and he died in the road accident on
13.05.2020. The accident occurred due to the negligent driving on the
part of the driver of the first respondent and being the legal dependants
of the deceased, they are also entitled for compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
6. Based on the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following points for determination:
a) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent vehicle
bearing Reg.No.TN 01 AT 8758? whether the deceased
contributed to the accident as alleged by the second
respondent?
b) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get
compensation as prayed for ?
c) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the
petitioners?
d) To what relief?
7. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 to
P.W.3 were examined and exhibits ExPs 1 to 17 were marked. On the
side of the respondents, RW1 was examined, but no document was
marked, however through the witnesses, Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.3 were
marked.
8. Based on the evidence adduced on both sides, the Tribunal has
fixed the negligence on the driver of the first respondent and awarded a
sum of Rs.45,34,300/- as compensation .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
9. Aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal, the second
respondent who is the insurer of the vehicle, has preferred this appeal
on the ground of negligence and also challenging the quantum of
compensation.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the respondents 1 to 3 who are wife and children of the
deceased/Kumar who died in a road accident have filed claim petition
for compensation to the tune of Rs.75 lakhs. The appellant is the insurer
of the vehicle which involved in the accident. In fact, the fourth
respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-48-
AH-6527 and the same was insured with the appellant/insurance
company. The said vehicle involved in the accident on 13.05.2020. In
fact, the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the
deceased who crossed the road without minding the proceeding vehicle
and thereby, he himself invited the accident and there is no negligence
on the part of the driver of the fourth respondent/first respondent. The
claimants who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein have not proved the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
negligence on the part of the driver of the fourth respondent/first
respondent. That apart, on the side of the respondents, they have
examined RW.1 and Exs.P.4 and P.5 Motor Vehicle Inspection Reports
clearly shows the damage of the vehicle and thereby, the Court can
easily infer that the negligence is on the part of the deceased. Moreover,
the Tribunal awarded excess compensation. The Tribunal failed to
consider that after the demise of deceased, the wife of the deceased is
receiving family pension and thereby, the amount awarded by the
Tribunal is too excess and therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3
would submit that the deceased died in the road accident and
petitioners 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are the dependents of the deceased and the
accident took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the
fourth respondent/first respondent. In order to prove the negligence on
his part, claimants have examined P.W.3 eyewitness to the occurrence
and the First Information Report is also registered as against the driver
of the fourth respondent/first respondent. In order to rebut the evidence
of PW.3 on the negligence aspect, the appellant/insurance company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
failed to examine any witnesses. Therefore, the petitioners/claimants
have proved the negligence on the part of the driver of the fourth
respondent/first respondent's vehicle and the Tribunal also after
analyzing the evidence correctly fixed the negligence on the part of the
driver of the fourth respondent/first respondent.
11.1. So far as quantum is concerned, the deceased was working as
Village Administrative Officer and drawing a salary of Rs.33,314/- per
month. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 46 years
and the Tribunal has adopted correct multiplier and awarded
reasonable amount. The Tribunal also deducted 10% of the income tax
and added 30% towards future prospectus and thereby, awarded
reasonable amount. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is just
and fair compensation and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. This Court has heard both sides and perused the materials
available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
13. Upon perusing the pleadings and records and upon hearing
both sides, the points for determination in this appeal are:
a) Whether the accident took place due to negligence on
the part of the driver of the fourth respondent/first respondent
which vehicle was insured with the second respondent?
b) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is just and fair compensation?
14. For sake of convenience and brevity, the appellant herein will
be referred to as second respondent and the respondents 1 to 3 will be
referred as petitioners and the fourth respondent will be referred as first
respondent and the respondents 5 and 6 will be referred as respondents
3 and 4 as referred in the Tribunal.
15. In this case, there is no dispute in respect of involvement of
vehicle in the accident. According to the petitioners, the deceased died
due to accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
first respondent. The second respondent who is the insurer of the first
respondent vehicle denied the negligence on the part of the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
respondent vehicle and therefore, the petitioners have to prove the
negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent vehicle. In
order to prove the same, they have examined P.W.3 who is the
eyewitness to the occurrence and he categorically deposed about the
negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent and the First
Information Report/Ex.P.1 was registered as against the driver of the
first respondent. Therefore, the petitioners established that the accident
took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the first
respondent. In order to rebut the evidence of the petitioners side, the
second respondent failed to adduce any contra evidence and in the
absence of contra evidence, the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P.1 are reliable
and acceptable. Therefore, the petitioners have proved the negligence on
the part of the driver of the first respondent. The Tribunal also after
analyzing the evidence correctly came to conclusion that the accident
took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the first
respondent.
16. So far as quantum is concerned, there is no dispute that the
deceased was aged about 46 years and the first petitioner is the wife and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
the petitioners 2 and 3 are the children and the third respondent is the
father and the fourth respondent is the mother of the deceased and the
Tribunal has dismissed the petition as against the third respondent who
is the father of the deceased. The respondent has not disputed the age of
the deceased and the deceased was working as Village Administrative
Officer and thereby, he was earning a sum of Rs.32,375/- per month and
the same was also proved through P.W.2 and Ex.X.2. The Tribunal also
fixed the age of the deceased as 46 years and taken the salary of the
deceased as Rs.32,378/- as per the document. Further added 30% of the
salary towards future prospectus . Since there are four dependants 1/4 th
income of the deceased was deducted by the Tribunal for personal
expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal also deducted professional tax
and 10% towards income tax and adopted correct multiplier of '13', and
calculated the award amount correctly.
17. Further, the Tribunal awarded loss of consortium of Rs.
40,000/- and Rs.60,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs. 15000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.15000/- for loss of estate. The Tribunal
ought to have awarded loss of consortium for all the claimants and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
cannot award separately under the head of love and affection and
therefore, award amount under the head of loss of love and affection can
be adjusted towards the loss of consortium. In other heads, the Tribunal
has awarded reasonable amount as per the decision of the Honourable
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 and therefore, the
amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation and the
points are answered accordingly.
18. In view of the above said discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal is in order and there is no
illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and thereby
the same warrants no interference and this Court finds no merit in the
appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
The appellant/second respondent insurance company is directed to
deposit the entire amount with in period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants are at liberty to withdraw
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
the said amount as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
[N.A.V.,J] [P.D.B.,J]
17.03.2026
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special
District Court to deal with MCOP cases, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
and
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
17.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 05:17:22 pm )
