The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. The Court upheld the finding of negligence, rejecting arguments of contributory negligence regarding the deceased's unlicensed status and lack of helmet. The compensation amount was confirmed as reasonable.
None. Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.(MD) No.1055 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.1055 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10983 of 2024
1.National Insurance Company Ltd., Represented through its Branch Manager, Office at Anguvilas Building, 112, North Car Street, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari.
2.National Insurance Company Ltd., Represented through its Branch Manager, Office at No.37/C, S.N.High Road, Thirunagar, Tirunelveli Junction, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Anitha, 2.Minor Gowshika, 3.Minor Deshvanth, (Minors represented by their mother/1st respondent) 4.Chellathai, 5.Sundaralingam, 6.Arul Seelan. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 8_
C.M.A.(MD) No.1055 of 2024
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 17.07.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.711 of 2022, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Tirunelveli.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Siva Raman
For Respondents
for R1 to R5: Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh for R6 : Dispensed with
J U D G M E N T
The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the finding on negligence and quantum of compensation.
the deceased was riding his two wheeler, the rider of the two wheeler insured with the appellant came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler ridden by the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 2 of 8_
C.M.A.(MD) No.1055 of 2024
place only due to the negligence of the deceased; that the rider of the insured vehicle did not have a valid licence; and that in any case, the compensation claimed was excessive.
Page No. 3 of 8
C.M.A.(MD) No.1055 of 2024
ought to have been fixed on the deceased and that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
submitted that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is called for.
‘a. Whether the finding on negligence by the Tribunal is justified?
b. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?’
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 8_
C.M.A.(MD) No.1055 of 2024
eyewitnesses to dislodge the evidence produced in on the side of the claimants. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the rough sketch, FIR and the Final Report filed by the Police. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the rider of the insured vehicle was guilty of negligence, cannot be faulted.
12. Though it is the case of the appellants that the deceased did not have a valid licence, it is well settled that the non-production of the driving licence cannot be the only basis to attribute contributory
negligence. That apart, though the postmortem report shows that the deceased died due to the head injuries, in the absence of any evidence to show that the deceased did not wear helmet, the said fact cannot be presumed only on the basis of the postmortem report. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 5 of 8_
C.M.A.(MD) No.1055 of 2024
multiplier is justified. The compensation under the other heads is reasonable and in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal and no interference is called for and hence, deserves to be confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 6 of 8_
C.M.A.(MD) No.1055 of 2024
thereafter, till the minors attain majority. The guardian of the minors/the first respondent herein, who is their mother, is permitted to withdraw interest from the said deposit, once in three months and utilise the same for the welfare of the minor claimants/respondents 2 and 3 herein.
21.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No NCC: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order apd To:
2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 7 of 8_
C.M.A.(MD) No.1055 of 2024
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
C.M.A.(MD) No.1055 of 2024
21.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 8 of 8_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding on negligence by the Tribunal is justified?
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Anitha
Minor Gowshika
Minor Deshvanth
Chellathai
Sundaralingam
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
