[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs R. Muthulakshmi on 18 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
C.M.A(MD) No.1186 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 13.03.2026
Pronounced on : 18.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.M.A(MD) No.1186 of 2023
and
CMP(MD)No. 5801 of 2023
The Divisional Manager
M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
No.4 , Bharathidasan Road
Cantonment
Trichy-1. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.R. Muthulakshmi
2.R.Subbulakshmi
3.R.Anantha nayaki
4.A.Sowbakiyam(died)
5.M.Senthilkumar
6.A.Kamatchi
7.A.Muthukrishnan
8.A.Venkatesan
9.A.Jayabal
10.Andal
11.Dhayanithi
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
C.M.A(MD) No.1186 of 2023
12.Sankaranarayanan
13.Padmavathy
(Respondents 6 to 13 are brought on record as
LRs of the deceased 4th Respondent vide court
order dated 25.07.2025 made in
CMP(MD)Nos. 11661, 11662 and 11664 of 2025) ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the award of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal cum Special District Judge, Tiruchirapalli made in
MCOP No.1285 of 2015 dated 28.01.2020 and allow the appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
For R1 to R3 : Mr.C.Padmaraj
R4 : Died
R5 : Given up
R6 to R13 : Batta due
JUDGMENT
P.DHANABAL, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the
award dated 28.01.2020, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1285 of 2015 by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District Judge,
Tiruchirapalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
2. The appellant is the second respondent in the claim petition and
the respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants who filed a petition for
compensation for a sum of Rs.2 Crores for the death of one Rengarajan.
The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.84,94,334/- as compensation.
Aggrieved by the said award, the second respondent/Insurance
Company has preferred this appeal.
3. Before the Tribunal, the respondents 1 to 4 have filed a claim
petition alleging that the deceased Rengarajan was working as Senior
Accounts Officer in BHEL, Trichy and earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
and other income totalling a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. While so, on
12.06.2015, in the midnight at about 00.15 hrs, while the deceased was
riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-45-BD-2001 near
Trichy- Pudukkottai main road near Trichy Airport outside gate
opposite towards northern direction, at that time, a TATA 407 bearing
Registration No.TN-55-L-8167 belonging to the first respondent and
insured with the second respondent came from the opposite direction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
dashed against the rider of the two wheeler and thereby, the deceased
sustained severe injuries and died on 23.06.2015. The deceased was aged
about 58 years and incurred a sum of Rs.4 lakhs towards medical
expenses. The accident took place due to the negligence on the part of
the driver of the first respondent. A criminal case was also registered as
against the driver of the first respondent in Crime No.166 of 2015 for the
offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The first petitioner is
the wife and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the daughters and the fourth
petitioner is the mother of the deceased. Therefore, they have filed a
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2 Crores as against the
second respondent.
4. The second respondent filed counter denying the averments
made in the petition. The accident had not happened as alleged in the
petition. The first respondent driver is no way responsible for the
accident and the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the
rider of the two wheeler. The second respondent denied the manner of
accident, age, income of the deceased and the petitioners are also put to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
strict proof of the income of the dependency of the deceased and
therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following points for determination:
a) Whether the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent TATA
407 van bearing Reg.No.TN-55-L-8167?
b) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties?
6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W.
3 were examined and exhibits Ex.P 1 to P13 were marked. On the side of
the respondents, two witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and
three documents Ex.R1 to R3 were marked.
7. After careful analysis of the evidence adduced on both sides, the
Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of
Rs.84,94,334/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum by directing the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
respondent insurer of the vehicle to deposit the amount within a period
of two months. Aggrieved by the said award the present appeal has
been filed.
8. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter
will be referred to as per their status/ ranking in the trial court.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the claimants are respondents 1 to 4 herein and they have filed a
petition for compensation seeking compensation of Rs.2 Crores and the
accident had happened due to the negligence on the part of the deceased
and the first respondent driver is no way responsible for the accident
and the deceased also contributed negligence, but the Tribunal has
failed to appreciate the evidence of R.W.1. The deceased was riding the
two wheeler from Trichy Airport and crossed from north to south in
Trichy to Pudukkottai main road and at that time, he dashed against the
first respondent vehicle. P.W.3 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence
and he also admitted that the deceased was coming out from Airport
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
and while crossing the road, he met with the accident. The Tribunal
failed to consider Ex.P.3/Rough sketch. As per the rough sketch, at the
time of crossing the road, the accident had happened and therefore, the
rider of the two wheeler is responsible for the accident however without
taking into consideration the negligence on the part of the deceased the
tribunal awarded compensation. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection in addition to the consortium
awarded for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the award passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4
would submit that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Appellant/1st
respondent. PW.3 who is the eyewitness in the occurrence had
categorically deposed about the negligence on the part of the first
respondent van driver. In fact, the deceased came out from the exit gate
of the Airport and thereafter, he crossed the main road and the accident
had taken place at the extreme western end of the road. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
side evidences would show that the first respondent who came from
south to north dashed against the rear side of the two wheeler and the
front portion of the vehicle van of 1st respondent got damaged and the
motor vehicle inspection report also reveals the same. Therefore, the
petitioner has proved the negligence on the part of the driver of the first
respondent. As per the evidence of RW.1, the deceased dashed against
the back side of the vehicle but the Motor Vehicle inspection report
shows that the first respondent vehicle was damaged on its front
Bumper. Therefore, the evidence of R.W.1 is not trustworthy and in
order to escape from the liability, he gave false evidence and thereby,
the Tribunal after elaborate discussion fixed the liability on the side of
the first respondent driver. So far as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal
awarded fair compensation and the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.
1 lakh under the head of loss of love and affection and therefore, the
award passed by the Tribunal is fair and just compensation and thus,
the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
11. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
12. In this case, there is no dispute in respect of the accident and
the involvement of the vehicles. According to the claimants, the accident
occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the first
respondent. According to the second respondent, the accident had taken
place due to negligence on the part of the rider of the two
wheeler/deceased. In order to prove the case of the claimants, the
petitioners have examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked exhibits Exs.P 1
to P13. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2
were examined and three documents Ex.R1 to R3 were marked. The
First Information Report was also registered as against the driver of the
first respondent vehicle for his negligent act. P.W.3 who is eye witness
has categorically deposed about the manner of accident and rough
sketch also shows that the deceased after crossing road while passing
towards north-south at the extreme end of the western side of the road,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
the accident had happened and the front left side of the vehicle was
damaged. RW.1 also admitted the accident but according to him, the
deceased only dashed against the rear side of the vehicle, but the rough
sketch and the motor vehicle report clearly shows that the front side
portion of the first respondent vehicle was damaged and thereby, the
evidence of RW.1 is not trustworthy and the evidence of P.W.3 and
Ex.P1 and P3 proved the negligence on the driver of the first respondent.
The Tribunal also after analysis, fixed the negligence on the driver of the
first respondent. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in fixing the
liability on the 1st respondent does not suffer infirmity and sustainable.
13. So far as quantum is concerned, the deceased was employed in
BHEL, Tirchy as a Senior Accounts Officer and his salary certificate was
marked as Ex.,P.12. In order to prove the same, they have examined
PW.2, Grade-I Assistant in Welfare Section of Human Resource
Management Department of BHEL, Trichy. According to his evidence
and Ex.P.11, the deceased's monthly salary was Rs.97,791.20. The age of
the deceased was 58 years on the date of accident and therefore, 15%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
future prospectus has to be included in the salary of the deceased and
thereby, the salary of the deceased would come to Rs.1,12,460/-, thereby
the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.13,49,520/-.
Considering the income of the deceased, approximately 10% of the
income (Rs.1,34,952/-) has to be deducted for Income tax and after
deducting the same, the annual income would come to Rs.12,14,568/-.
Considering the dependency of the deceased, 1/4th amount (Rs.
3,03,642/-) has to be deducted for his travel expenses and thereby, the
annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,10,926/-.
14. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 9 is adopted
and thereby, the award amount comes to Rs.81,98,334/- (Rs.9,10,926/- X
9). Further, each of the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards
consortium, and they are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate
and also Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Further, the Tribunal
also correctly arrived at compensation by adopting correct multiplier
method and therefore the said head need not be interfered with. So far
as consortium is concerned, the Tribunal only awarded consortium to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
the first petitioner but the second and third petitioners are also entitled
for consortium and thereby this Court awards consortium to the tune of
Rs.40,000/- each to the petitioners.
15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards love
and affection. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the petitioners are entitled for
funeral expenses, consortium and loss of estate and thereby awarding
separate amount for love and affection is unsustainable and the same is
liable to be set aside. Further, the Tribunal also awarded transport
expenses and there is no specific evidence for the transport expenses.
Already the Tribunal awarded under the head of funeral expenses and
thereby once again, compensation under the head of transport expenses
need not be awarded and thereby the award under the head of travel
expanses is also liable to be set aside. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.
15,000/- towards loss of estate and the same need not be interfered with.
Accordingly the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the effect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
that the petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.83,88,334/- and
rounded off to Rs.84,00,000/-. The total compensation awarded by this
Court is as follows:
Head Amount
Loss of Income Rs. 81,98,334/-
Loss of Consortium to the Petitioners
Rs.1,60,000/-
1 to 4 (Rs.40,000/- each)
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.83,88,334/-
(rounded to
Rs.84,00,000/-
16. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the fourth
petitioner/mother of the deceased died and therefore, the respective
share of the fourth petitioner/mother of the deceased shall be
apportioned equally among the petitioners 1 to 3.
17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly
allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent
indicated above. The Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
deposit the balance award amount, less the amount already deposited, if
any, within a period of four (4) weeks before the Tribunal. On such
deposit, the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to withdraw the same on filing
appropriate petition before the Tribunal. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petition stands closed.
[N.A.V.,J] [P.D.B.,J]
18 .03.2026
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
cum Special District Judge, Tiruchirapalli
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
and
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
18.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
