Dismissed

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Panimalar

Madras HC25 Nov 2025CMA/1849/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance appeal against a motor accident compensation award to a deceased rider's family. The court upheld the award, holding that while the trial court erred in deducting 10% from claimants' compensation for the JCB driver lacking a licence, such deduction properly relates to the deceased not wearing a helmet; the payable amount remains unchanged and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Insurer directed to deposit entire award amount; claimants permitted to withdraw; appeal dismissed without costs.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Panimalar — Insurance | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 12.11.2025

¶4

Pronounced on : 25.11.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER

¶9

KUMAR

¶10

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022

¶11

and

¶12

C.M.P.No.13385 of 2022

¶13

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Court Street, Tiruppur. ... Appellant / 3^rd respondent Vs

¶14

1.Panimalar 2.Minor M.Ugesh 3.Minor Vikashini ... Respondents / Petitioners 1 to 3 4.Dhanasekaran ... Respondent / 1^st Respondent 5.Sivasamy ... Respondent / 2^nd Respondent

¶15

This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in MACT O.P.No.714 of 2017 dated 29.03.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident

¶16

1/10

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022

¶19

Claim Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.N.B.Sureka

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.MA.P.Thangavel for RR1 to 3 No Appearance for R4 R5 – set exparte

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Appeal filed by the Insurance company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tiruppur in M.A.C.O.P.No.714 of 2017 dated 29.03.2019.

¶24

2.The petition for compensation filed by the wife and two minor

¶25

children of the accident victim seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with

¶26

interest against the driver, owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer of

¶27

the vehicle.

¶28

2/10

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022 3.According to the claimants, on 27.11.2016 at about 7.20 P.M., the

¶31

husband of the 1^st claimant and father of the minor claimants 2 and 3 while proceeding in his Hero Honda Passion Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.TN40-D-7972 on Sathy to Mettupalayam Road, near Viscose bus stop, a JCB bearing Reg. No.KL-39-6829 proceeding in front of the deceased vehicle got punctured and abruptly stopped without any indication by its driver. Due

¶32

to sudden brake applied by the JCB driver, Muthuraja dashed against the bucket of the JCB and thrown on the road sustaining severe head injury and injury all over the body. He died on the spot. The claimants being his dependants stating that at the time of accident, Muthuraja was working as a Supervisor in a Garments Company and earning more than Rs.20,000/- as salary and bonus. He was 40 years old at that time and he had a good future prospects. Hence, towards loss of earning and future prospects, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- claimed as compensation.

¶33

4.The Insurance Company contested the claim on the ground that, the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased, who recklessly drove his two wheeler and dashed behind the JCB vehicle. The 3/10

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022 criminal case was registered against the deceased, for his negligent driving

¶36

and the same was closed as abated, by misrepresentation claim petition has filed with false averment. The driver of the JCB had no valid driving licence and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation on behalf of the vehicle owner. The claim of compensation is exorbitant without any supporting document. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶37

5.Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the 1^st claimant, Panimalar, was examined as PW-1. Three more witnesses were examined by the claimants to prove the accident and negligence of the JCB driver. Exs.P1 to P11 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondents, three witnesses were examined and Exs.R1 to R10 were marked.

¶38

6.The Tribunal on considering the evidence held that as per the First Information Report Ex.P1, complaint was lodged against the driver of the JCB. The complainant is the 1^st claimant. PW-2 is the co-worker of the deceased who was following him after the office hours had witnessed the accident and deposed in favour of the claimants. Though the police has 4/10

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022 closed the complaint as mistake of fact, considering the ocular evidence of PW-2 and the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, the Tribunal held the JCB driver responsible for the accident. The pay slip of the deceased for the month of October 2016 taken as guidance for fixing the loss of earning. After adding 25% towards future prospects to the gross salary, Tribunal fixed Rs.22,086/- as monthly income and after applying multiplier 15 deducted 1/3 towards personal expenditure and awarded a sum of Rs.26,50,320/- towards loss of income. Following Pranay Sethi case for three claimants, loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/- and for funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- with transport expense of Rs.5,000/- awarded. A total compensation of Rs.27,90,320/- fixed payable to the claimants with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of deposit. Taking into consideration, the driver of the JCB had no valid licence, the Tribunal had deducted 10% from the total compensation payable to the claimants.

¶41

7.In the appeal by the Insurance Company, it is contended that, the Tribunal having found that there is a policy violation by the insured, the entire award amount ought to have been fastened on the owner of the 5/10

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022 vehicle and its driver. Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the policy violator. The Court below fail to appreciate that PW-1 is an interested witness. Moreover, she an eye witness to the occurrence, so she is not competent to speak about the negligence. However, the Tribunal overlooked the closure report of the police after investigation and held the driver of the JCB was negligent.

¶44

8.When the JCB driver had no valid licence, the order of the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay 90% of the compensation is contrary to the fundamental law of torts. The learned Tribunal failed to see that the deceased died due to head injury and was not wearing helmet. For his negligence, atleast 50% of the compensation ought to have been deducted.

¶45

9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the fault is on the deceased and the driver of the JCB had no valid driving licence, the compensation awarded has to be set aside.

¶46

10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 6/10

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022 submitted that First Information Report, given by the wife of the deceased, is based on the information given to the defacto complainant. PW-2 was following the deceased in his two wheeler and he had deposed about the accident and the negligence of the JCB driver. Therefore, for the default of the JCB driver not possessing valid driving licence, the Tribunal ought not to have deduct 10% compensation payable to the claimants. It should have ordered full compensation to the claimants payable by the Insurance Company and ought to have given liberty to the Insurance Company to recover 10% from the owner of the vehicle. Omission to do so is apparently illegal.

¶49

11.Heard the learned counsels appearing for the Insurance Company as appellant and for the claimants as respondents.

¶50

12.The nature of the accident is explained in the First Information Report as well as in the evidence of PW-2. It has occurred when the deceased riding his two wheeler hit the JCB moving ahead to him. It is contended by the Insurance Company, the deceased was not wearing helmet, therefore the head injury sustained became fatal to his life.

¶51

13.We find minor contradiction in the evidence and First Information Report. If PW-2 was present at the time of accident, there is no explanation 7/10

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022 from him why he did not give the complaint nor statement to the police regarding accident. The accidence case has been closed as mistake of fact alleging negligence on the part of the deceased. No protest petition after RCS notice issued to the first claimant intimating about the closure of the complaint. There is equally a contradictory evidence regarding negligence.

¶54

Further, the failure of the deceased to wear helmet has contributed to his death.

¶55

14.In the said circumstances, we find that the 10% deduction by the trial Court for the JCB driver failure to hold driving licence and deducting the same from the compensation payable to the claimants is erroneous. However, the said deduction of 10% should have been for not wearing the helmet. In any event, the award amount payable to the claimants will not change. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, if not already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶56

(G.J.J) (M.S.K.J)

¶57

25.11.2025

¶58

8/10

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022

¶61

smv Index: Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No

¶62

DR. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶63

and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶64

smv

¶65

¶66

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur.

¶67

Pre-delivery Judgment in C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.13385 of 2022

¶68

9/10

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

C.M.A.No.1849 of 2022

¶71

25.11.2025

¶72

10/10

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Panimalar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Panimalar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiruthika Kalaiyarasu Vs Naveenkumar

The Manager, Vs Ramamoorthy

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Ajith Kumar

Tr.J.Singaravel Vs G. Thamilarasan

Manimozhi Anbalagan Vs C.Shanmuga Sundar

M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Bhuvaneshwari