M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited by its Branch Manager v. Nirmala Devi2.Kiruthiga3.Minor Swathi4.Minor Rajesh1/7
Case at a glance
- Bench
- N ANAND VENKATESH
Outcome
Dismissed
In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal and this civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Having rendered the above finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation of Rs.22,06,000/- in the following manner:S.NoHeads under which compensation awardedAmount3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.468 of 20261.Loss of DependencyRs.14,40,000/-2.Future ProspectusRs.5,76,000/-3.Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/-4.Love and AffectionRs.1,20,000/-5.Funeral ExpensesRs.15,000/-6.Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- TotalRs.22,06,000/-5. The above compensation was…
Judgment
C.M.A(MD)No.468 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 10.04.2026CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESHANDTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNANC.M.A(MD)No.468 of 2026andC.M.P.(MD).No.4700 of 2026M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited by its Branch Manager, having office at Sri Lakshmi Complex, 1st floor, Omalur Main Road, Bharathi Street, Sornapuri, Salem-638 004. ... AppellantVs.
Nirmala Devi2.Kiruthiga3.Minor Swathi4.Minor Rajesh1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.468 of 2026(Minor Respondent Nos.3 and 4 represented by their mother and next friend 1st respondent / Nirmala Devi)5.K.Udayappan ... RespondentPRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order dated 06.12.2024 passed in M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Tiruchirappalli and allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. For Appellant: Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)The appeal has been filed challenging the award passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Tiruchirappalli, made in M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2020 dated 06.12.2024.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.468 of 20262. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the claimants. The case of the claimants is that on 25.03.2019 at about 02.15 p.m., the deceased was travelling as a vegetable goods owner to sell the vegetables in the market and the vehicle belonging to the first respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, it dashed on the vehicle of the deceased and he died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed by the wife and children of the deceased.
The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent vehicle's driver.
Having rendered the above finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation of Rs.22,06,000/- in the following manner:S.NoHeads under which compensation awardedAmount3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.468 of 20261.Loss of DependencyRs.14,40,000/-2.Future ProspectusRs.5,76,000/-3.Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/-4.Love and AffectionRs.1,20,000/-5.Funeral ExpensesRs.15,000/-6.Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- TotalRs.22,06,000/-5. The above compensation was directed to be paid by the appellant with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company.6. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the deceased was travelling in his goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and not as the owner. Therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the liability against the appellant / Insurance Company.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.468 of 20267.
Operative part
A careful reading of the award passed by the Tribunal and on appreciation of the evidence of P.W.2, R.W.1 to R.W.3, the Tribunal has held that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle only as the owner of the goods along with the vegetable bags and that the appellant / Insurance Company have not examined any independent witness to prove their stand. Even the finding rendered by the Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Apart from the above, the Tribunal has fixed a reasonable compensation which also does not warrant the interference of this Court. 8. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal and this civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. There shall be a direction to the appellant / Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation along with interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2020 on the file of the Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Tiruchirappalli, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.468 of 2026 Petition is closed. [N.A.V., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.] 10.04.2026 NCC:Yes/NoIndex :Yes/NoTSGTo1.The Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The Record Keeper (Vernacular Records),Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.468 of 2026N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.ANDK.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.TSGC.M.A(MD)No.468 of 2026 10.04.20267/7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal and this civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.