G.Parameswari v. G.Selvakumar

Madras HC29 Jan 2025CMA/3154/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident death claim; rear-end collision allegation versus self-fall; FIR registered against the deceased himself; Final Report closing case as charge abated; relative eyewitness P.W.2 credibility; claimants did not challenge FIR/Final Report; insurer's failure to examine first respondent does not establish negligence; Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act 1988 CMA; compensation enhancement refused; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. not liable; Tribunal Salem award of Rs.22,61,000/- set aside; neutral citation 2025:MHC:276; judgment reserved 03-01-2025, delivered 29-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company's appeal in CMA.No.1797 of 2022 allowed; Tribunal Award dated 12.08.2021 in M.C.O.P.No.1264 of 2019 set aside; claimants' enhancement appeal in CMA.No.3154 of 2021 dismissed; no order as to costs; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

G.Parameswari Vs G.Selvakumar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶104

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners have proved the manner of accident as alleged by them in the claim petition (i.e., whether the first respondent's motorcycle caused the accident rather than a self-fall by the deceased). +1 more

¶¶90

Court's answer

Given the close relationship between the petitioners, P.W.2 and the first respondent, and since the petitioners neither challenged the FIR (Ex-P.1) nor the Final Report (Ex-R.1) filed against the deceased, they cannot claim that the FIR shall not be treated as part of their claim petition; the petitioners thus failed to prove the manner of accident as pleaded.

¶¶95

Ratio / Principle

Ex-P.1 FIR and Ex-R.1 Final Report disentitle the petitioners to claim compensation; the Court concluded the accident did not occur as pleaded, the first respondent's vehicle was not involved in the accident, and the accident occurred as a self-fall.

¶¶96

Key takeaways

The petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation and the insurance company / second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.ratio¶¶96
The Tribunal was not right in concluding that because the insurance company did not examine the first respondent he was negligent and both respondents were jointly and severally liable; the Tribunal's Award deserved interference and was set aside.ratio¶¶101

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench of J. Nisha Banu and R. Sakthivel JJ.; judgment authored by R. Sakthivel J.) allowed the insurer's appeal (CMA.No.1797 of 2022), set aside the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem award of Rs.22,61,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.1264 of 2019, and dismissed the claimants' enhancement appeal (CMA.No.3154 of 2021). The deceased motorcyclist Vijayakumar died on 28.09.2018; the FIR (Ex-P.1) was lodged by the first respondent — the deceased's uncle — describing the incident as a self-fall, and the police closed the criminal case as charge abated (Ex-R.1 Final Report). Because the claimants never challenged the FIR or Final Report, and the sole eyewitness P.W.2 was closely related to both the deceased and the first respondent, the Court held the FIR and Final Report disentitled the claimants to compensation, that the first respondent's vehicle was not involved, and that the accident was a self-fall; the insurance company was held not liable. No order as to costs; connected CMP closed.

¶1

2025:MHC:276

¶2

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 03 / 01 / 2025

¶5

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 29 / 01 / 2025

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶9

CMA Nos.3154 of 2021 & 1797 of 2022 and CMP No.12964 of 2022 in CMP No.1797 of 2022

¶10

CMA Nos.3154 of 2021

¶11

G.Parameswari 2. Rajkumar

¶12

Indhrani

¶13

... Appellants / Petitioners

¶14

Vs.

¶15

G.Selvakumar 2. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., 104-A, Ranga Building, Peramanur Main Road, Near Four Road, Salem, Salem - 636 007.

¶16

... Respondents/Respondents ... Appellant / 2^nd respondent Vs.

¶17

CMA Nos.1797 of 2022

¶18

United India Insurance Co., Ltd., 104-A, Ranga Building, Peramanur Main Road, Near Four Road, Salem, Salem - 636 007.

¶19

Page No.1 of 12

¶20

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

¶21

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶22

G.Parameswari

¶23

Rajkumar

¶24

Indhrani

¶25

… Respondents 1 to 3 / Petitioners 1 to 3

¶26

G.Selvakumar

¶27

... Respondent No.4 / Respondent No.1

¶28

PRAYER IN CMA.No.3154 of 2021 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the Compensation awarded vide the Award dated 12.08.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.1264 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.

¶29

PRAYER IN CMA.No.1797 of 2022 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the judgement and decree dated 12.08.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1264 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.

¶30

For Appellants in CMA.No.3154 of 2021 &	Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Respondents 1 to 3 in CMA.No.1797 of 2022
For 2^ndrespondent in CMA.No.3154 of 2021 & Appellant in CMA.No.1797 of 2022	Mrs.R.Sreevidhya
For first respondent in CMA.No.3154 of 2021	Notice dispensed with by this Court’s Order dated June 23, 2023
For fourth respondent in CMA.No.1797 of 2022	No appearance despite service.

¶31

Page No.2 of 12

¶32

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

¶33

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶34

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶35

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶36

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated August 12, 2021 passed by the ‘Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem’ (‘Tribunal’ for short) in M.C.O.P.No.1264 of 2019, the petitioners/ claimants therein have preferred CMA.No. 3154 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation. The second respondent / insurance company therein has preferred CMA.No.1797 of 2022 challenging its liability and the quantum.

¶37

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rank in the Motor Claim original Petition.

¶38

Petitioners' Case:

¶39

3. The case of the claimants is that on September 28, 2018, at around 5.00 p.m., the deceased - Vijayakumar, aged 34, was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 54 E 8890 from Kodumudi to Salem near Paramathi Pillaikalathur X-road speed breaker. At that time, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 30 P 7447, ridden by its rider rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle in which the deceased was

¶40

Page No.3 of 12

¶41

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

¶42

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶43

riding from behind. Due to the sudden impact, the deceased fell down, sustained injuries, and died on the way to the hospital. At the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a Cable Operator for Tamilnadu Arasu Cable T.V., earning Rs.50,000/- per month. His sister / first petitioner, brother / second petitioner, and mother / third petitioner claimed that the first respondent’s vehicle, insured with the second respondent, was liable for the accident. Accordingly, they filed a claim petition seeking Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.

¶44

First Respondent's Case:

¶45

4. Despite notice to the first respondent, he did not choose to contest the original petition, hence he was called absent and set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

¶46

Second Respondent’s Case:

¶47

5. The second respondent filed a counter stating that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased, that too without wearing helmet. He himself fell down and sustained injuries. First Information Report (FIR) was registered only against the deceased and after investigation, the police closed the case as charge abated. The first respondent’s vehicle was not involved in the

¶48

Page No.4 of 12

¶49

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

¶50

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶51

accident. This original petition has been filed with a view to get unlawful

¶52

gain from the second respondent. The petitioners are sister, brother and step mother of the deceased – Vijayakumar and they are not dependents of the deceased. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the original petition.

¶53

Tribunal:

¶54

6. At trial, the second petitioner was examined as P.W.1, and one Ashok Kumar, said to be an eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.14 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined, but Ex-R.1 - Final Report was marked.

¶55

7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on

¶56

record came to the conclusion that the accident happened only due to the rash and negligent riding of the first respondent, who did not contest the case and hence, the second respondent / insurance company is not entitled to take a different stand that the accident was not caused by him. At the time of the accident, the first respondent’s vehicle was insured with the second respondent and hence, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. With regard to quantum of compensation

¶57

the Tribunal took a sum of Rs.17,000/- as his salary and deducted 1/3^rd

¶58

Page No.5 of 12

¶59

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

¶60

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶61

amount towards his personal expenses and computed the compensation as

¶62

stated below:-

¶63

*S.No.*	*Head*	*Amount*
1.	Loss of Income	Rs.21,76,000/-
	[(17,000x12x16)=32,64,000–1/3(10,88,000)= Rs.21,76,000/-
2.	Loss of love and affection(20,000 x3)	Rs,60,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	Rs.25,000/-
	Total	Rs.22,61,000/-

¶64

8. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

¶65

awarded, the petitioners / appellants have filed the appeal in CMA.No.3154 of 2021 praying for enhancement of compensation amount. Questioning the liability, the insurance company has filed the appeal in CMA.No.1797 of 2022.

¶66

Arguments:

¶67

9. Mrs. R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel appearing for the

¶68

Insurance Company / appellant in CMA.No.1797 of 2022 submitted that the First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the deceased -

¶69

Vijaya Kumar, based on the information given by the first respondent. The

¶70

first respondent is none other than uncle of the deceased - Vijayakumar. The claim petition has been filed contrary to the FIR. The petitioners

¶71

placed reliance on Ex-P.1 - FIR treating it as part of their claim petition.

¶72

Hence the petitioners cannot partly accept and partly reject the contents of

¶73

Page No.6 of 12

¶74

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

¶75

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶76

FIR. She further submitted that P.W.2, a close relative of deceased as well

¶77

as the first respondent, was set up as an eyewitness. In fact the accident happened only due to the rash and negligent riding and over speed of the deceased - Vijayakumar. He himself fell down and sustained injuries. Only with a view to claim compensation unlawfully, the first respondent was set up to file an FIR and P.W.2 was set up to depose falsely. The second respondent specifically stated that the first respondent’s vehicle was not involved in the accident but the Tribunal without applying its mind, erroneously came to conclusion that the first respondent’s vehicle was involved in the accident.

¶78

9.1. She would further submit that the first petitioner, namely G.Parameswari, being the deceased’s sister aged about 45 years, is married and residing along with her husband. The second petitioner, namely Rajkumar, is his elder brother aged about 41 years and he is residing separately. The third petitioner, namely Indhrani, is the step-mother of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners cannot be said to be dependents upon the salary of the deceased. Accordingly she prayed to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA No.1797 of 2022 and dismiss the original petition.

¶79

Page No.7 of 12

¶80

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

¶81

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶82

10. In response to the above arguments, Mr. M. Mohamed

¶83

Riyaz, learned counsel for the petitioners / appellants in CMA No.3154 of 2021 would argue that the first respondent rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit behind the motorcycle ridden by the deceased. The petitioners examined P.W.2 - Ashok Kumar to prove that the first respondent alone was negligent and caused the accident. Only with a view to escape from the liability, the first respondent himself preferred a false complaint, based on which Ex-P.1 - FIR was registered. The deceased did not fall down on his own, as alleged in the FIR. The insurance company did not take steps to examine the first respondent. In these circumstances, the evidence of P.W.2 can be accepted as the best piece of evidence and it cannot be simply brushed aside. In view of the deposition of P.W.2, Ex.P1 - FIR cannot be considered as an evidence to attribute negligence on the deceased. The Tribunal rightly appreciated the facts and evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the first respondent was the sole reason for the accident. There is no reason to interfere with the said decision and accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company in CMA No.1797 of 2022.

¶84

Page No.8 of 12

¶85

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

¶86

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶87

10.1. As regards the quantum of compensation, at the time of

¶88

accident the deceased - Vijayakumar was 34 years old and working as a Cable Operator in Tamilnadu Arasu Cable T.V, earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken only a meagre sum of Rs.17,000/- as his monthly income. Accordingly the learned counsel prayed to enhance the award amount and allow the appeal in CMA No.3154 of 2021.

¶89

Discussion:

¶90

11. This Court considered both sides arguments and perused the evidence available on record. The point that arise for consideration is whether the petitioners have proved the manner of accident as alleged by them in the claim petition.

¶91

12. Admittedly, Ex-P.1 - FIR was registered against the deceased -Vijayakumar that the accident is a self-fall. The first respondent is none other than the uncle of the deceased - Vijayakumar. On the basis of the complaint given by the first respondent, Ex-P.1 - FIR was registered. After registering the FIR, the police investigated the matter and filed ExR.1 – Final Report as charge abated in RC's 17 of 2018 after due notice to

¶92

Page No.9 of 12

¶93

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

¶94

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶95

the complainant. The first respondent and P.W.2 - Ashok Kumar all are close relatives to the deceased. Considering the close relationship between the petitioners, P.W.2 and the first respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioners were aware of the fact that the police after investigation closed the criminal case as charged abated. The petitioners side neither challenged the FIR - Ex-P.1 nor the Final Report - Ex-R.1 filed against the deceased. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim that the FIR shall not be treated as part of their claim petition. Further, the first respondent was not examined by the insurance company.

¶96

13. In view of the facts and circumstances, the conduct of the first respondent and the close relationship between the petitioners, first respondent and P.W.2, this Court is of the considered view that Ex-P.1 - FIR and Ex-R.1 - Final Report disentitles the petitioners to claim compensation. This Court also come to the conclusion that the accident did not occur as pleaded by the petitioners. The first respondent vehicle was not involved in the accident. The accident occurred as a self-fall. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation against the insurance company / second respondent. The insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal is not right in concluding

¶97

Page No.10 of 12

¶98

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

¶99

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2

¶100

that the first respondent was not examined by the insurance company and

¶101

hence, the first respondent was negligent and both the respondents were liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. Hence, the Award is to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, the Award passed by the Tribunal is set aside.

¶102

Result:

¶103

14. In the result, the appellant / insurance company’s appeal

¶104

in CMA.No.1797 of 2022 is allowed. The Award dated August 12, 2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.1264 of 2019 is set aside. The appellants / claimants appeal in CMA.No.3154 of 2021 is dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶105

[J.N.B., J.] [R.S.V., J.]

¶106

29 / 01 / 2025

¶107

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking Order : Yes av / tk

¶108

Page No.11 of 12

¶109

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

¶110

C MA N o s . 3 1 5 4 o f 2 0 2 1 & 1 7 9 7 O F 2 0 2 2