✦ High Court of India · 17 Feb 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 17 Feb 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

17 Feb 2025

Bench

S.SOUNTHAR

Length

1,045 words

CMA.No.407 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated :17.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARCMA No.407 of 2025 andC.M.P.No.3058 of 2025The United India Insurance Co., LimitedNo.134,Greams Road, IV Floor,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. ... appellantVs.1.Devi2.S.Vignesh(Minor)3.S.Manikandan(Minor)4.S.Sathish(Minor)(Minors 2 to 4 rep. By their mother/natural guardian and next friend S.Devi)5.Gnanprakasam6.Muniyammal7.E.Kuppan ... respondentsPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the award and decree dated 07.06.2024 made in MCOP.No.6385 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.For appellant: Mr.D.BhaskaranFor respondents: Mr.Varadha Kamaraj for R1 to R6R7-Notice dispensed withPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.407 of 2025 JUDGMENTThe Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant / Insurance company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.2. According to the respondents 1 to 6/claimants, on 13.10.2018, the husband of the 1st claimant, father of the claimants 2 to 4 and son of the claimants 5 and 6, proceeded on his motorcycle bearing registration number TN-18-AF-9857 from Tambaram to Puzhal Byepass road. When he was nearing Pattaravakam bridge, the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration number TN-20-AM-2827, owned by 7th Respondent and insured with the appellant/ Insurance Company, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the vehicle driven by the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle, sustained head injuries and died on 15.10.2018. The claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.49,00,000/-. Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.407 of 20253. The 7th Respondent, the owner of the vehicle, remained ex-party before the Tribunal. The appellant/ Insurance Company alone contested the claim petition on the ground that negligence was on the part of the deceased.4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the deceased was also responsible for the accident, erred in fixing only 15% of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He further submitted that at the relevant point of time, the deceased failed to wear the helmet as per the Motor Vehicles Act and he did not possess a valid license. Therefore, the Tribunal should have fixed at least 50% negligence on the part of the deceased. The learned counsel also submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads and amount of Rs. 12,000/- fixed as notional income by the Tribunal are not justified. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6/ claimants Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.407 of 2025submitted that based on evidence of independent eyewitness, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred primarily due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant. Therefore, the same need not be disturbed. The learned counsel also submitted that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.12,000/- is very much on the lower side. Having regard to the notional income fixed by the Tribunal, the contributory negligence of 15% fixed by the Tribunal need not be enhanced.6. In order to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the two-wheeler insured with the appellant, an independent eyewitness was examined as PW2. The said witness clearly stated that the accident had occurred only due to the application of sudden brake by the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant. The relevant portion is extracted below:- “gl;luthf;fk; ghyk; ,w';Fk; ,lj;jpy; tpgj;J ele;jJ/ vdf;F Kd;dhy; xUth; nkhl;lhh; irf;fps; Xl;or; brd;W bfhz;oUe;jhh;/ mth; mtUf;F Kd;dhy; brd;Wbfhz;L ,Ue;j ,d;bdhU nkhl;lhh; irf;fps; kPJ ,oj;Jtpl;lhh;/ mtUf;F Kd;dhy; brd;w nkhl;lhh; Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.407 of 2025irf;fps; jpObud epd;wjhy; vdf;F Kd;dhy; brd;Wbfhz;oUe;j me;j nkhl;lhh; irf;fps; Xl;oath; mjd; kPJ ,of;f nehpl;lJ/ vdf;F Rkhh; 20 mo J}uj;jpy; gpnuf; nghl;l me;j nkhl;lhh; irf;fps; brd;W bfhz;oUe;jJ/ vdf;F Kd;dhy; brd;W bfhz;oUe;j ,Urf;fu thfdk; gpnuf; nghl;l ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpd; kPJ nkhJk;nghJ jhd; ehd; ghh;j;njd;/ Kd;dhy; brd;W bfhz;oUe;j ,Urf;fu thfdk; jpObud epd;wjhy; jhd; ,e;j tpgj;J Vw;gl;lJ/ mth; vjw;fhf jpObud ,Urf;fu thfdj;ij epWj;jpdhh; vd;W bjhpatpy;iy”7. A reading of PW2's evidence clearly indicates that the vehicle insured with the appellant proceeded in front of the vehicle driven by the deceased. The driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant applied sudden brake as a result of which, there was a collusion and the deceased fell down from his vehicle and got injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal, after proper appreciation of evidence of PW2, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred primarily due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant. If the deceased maintained the safe distance from the vehicle proceeding in front of his vehicle, the accident would have not occurred. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly fixed 15% contributory negligence on the part of Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.407 of 2025the deceased. The said findings of the Tribunal requires no interference. 8. Having regard to the date of accident, the amount of Rs.12,000/- as notional income fixed by the Tribunal appear to be very conservative one. Any way, the claimants have not questioned the same by filing appeal. Hence, the same need not be interfered with. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads like loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, transportation charges are also as per the decided case laws. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also appear to be just and reasonable. Hence, this Court does not find anything to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. 9. The Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.407 of 2025deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On deposit of the award amount, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by filing a formal application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.17.02.2025Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/No nrTo1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.407 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.nrCMA No.407 of 2025 andC.M.P.No.3058 of 202517.02.2025 Page 8 of 8

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments