Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. a.S.Mathu Mithan

Madras HC14 Nov 2025CMA(MD)/850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against a motor accident tribunal award on quantum of compensation for grievous injuries to a rider hit by a mini lorry. The court reduced assessed disability from 100% to 61% per the Medical Board certificate, cutting loss-of-income to Rs.25,38,327 and total compensation from Rs.87,96,892 to Rs.71,74,027, and directed deposit within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; award reduced to Rs.71,74,027/-; insurer directed to deposit modified amount with interest and costs within eight weeks.

The Branch Manager Vs a.S.Mathu Mithan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.M.A(MD)No.850 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶8

C.M.A(MD)No.850 of 2025

¶9

and

¶10

C.M.P(MD)Nos.13285 & 18351 of 2025

¶11

The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, DDJ Centre, Opposite to Vadasery Bus Stand, Vadasery, Nagercoil & Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

...Appellant/Respondent No.3

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.A.S.Mathu Mithan

¶15

G.Ramaraj (Died) 2.E.Vignesh 3.The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, PWD Road, Nagercoil, Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶16

4.Ganthimathi

¶17

5.Megala

¶18

6.Minor Akina

¶19

1/7

¶20

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

¶21

C.M.A(MD)No.850 of 2025

¶22

7.Minor Esthar

¶23

(Minor respondents 6 & 7 represented through their mother, guardian 5th respondent herein)

¶24

...Respondents 2 to 7/ Respondents 2, 4 to 7

¶25

Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.26 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge of Nagercoil by allowing this appeal.

¶26

For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.S.Jayakumar

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon'ble P.VELMURUGAN,J. )

¶30

The appellant Insurance Company aggrieved by the award passed

¶31

by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court, Nagercoil, in M.C.O.P.No.26 of 2022, dated 18.03.2025, has preferred this appeal, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶32

2.MCOP No.26 of 2022 has been filed by the injured claiming compensation of Rs.1,40,00,000/- alleging that on 19.10.2020 at about 3.25 pm, while he was riding his TVS two-wheeler bearing registration No.TN-74-AW-5766 in the extreme left side of the road towards west

¶33

direction from Tirunelveli to Nagercoil road, in front of SAFI Traders, 2/7

¶34

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

¶35

C.M.A(MD)No.850 of 2025

¶36

Ozhukinasery, on the same direction a Mini Lorry (Goods Carrier - Tipper) bearing No.TN-67-BF-7579 drove by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's two wheeler. In the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Manuel Orthopedic Hospital Therekalputhoor and subsequently, he took treatment at various hospitals for about one year.

¶37

3.The third respondent / Insurance Company filed a counter contending that the claimant was cause for the accident, and also disputed their liability to pay compensation.

¶38

4.Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1

¶39

and also examined three other witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.4 and marked Exs.P1 to P53. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. Ex.C1 was marked as Court document.

¶40

5.The Tribunal, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P5-Charge sheet, came to the conclusion that the first respondent was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.87,96,892/along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Challenging the award, the present appeal has been filed.

¶41

3/7

¶42

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

¶43

C.M.A(MD)No.850 of 2025

¶44

6.Heard Mr.V.Sakthivel , learned counsel appearing for the

¶45

appellant and Mr.S.Jayakumar , learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶46

The learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company submitted that this is a case of injury, due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injury and he was referred to the Medical Board, after examining the injured, the medical board has given disability certificate for 61%. The doctor was examined as P.W.4 and he has not stated anything about the permanent disability and after examining the injured, he assessed only 61% of the disability. Whereas, the tribunal without assigning any specific reason, calculating the loss of annual income and took 100% disability, which is against the evidence of P.W.4 and also Ex.C1-disability certificate. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant / first respondent made submissions in support of the award passed by the tribunal.

¶47

The Tribunal has fixed the notional loss of income at Rs.20,398/- per month and by applying multiplier of 17, awarded Rs.41,61,192 /- towards loss of income. The tribunal has fixed 100% disability and the same is to be reduced. Re-appreciating the evidence of

¶48

4/7

¶49

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

¶50

C.M.A(MD)No.850 of 2025

¶51

P.W.4 doctor, this Court finds that the award passed by the tribunal towards

¶52

loss of income is perverse and therefore, as per Ex.C1 and also the evidence of P.W.4, this Court fixed the disability at 61% and the amount comes to Rs.20,398 x 12 x 17 = 41,61,192/- x 61 % 100 =Rs.25,38,327/- towards loss of income. The amounts awarded under all other heads are confirmed.

¶53

9.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The award is reduced to Rs.71,74,027/- from Rs.87,96,892/-. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount, less the amount already deposited, if any, along with accrued interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.26 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge of Nagercoil, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶54

(P.V.,J.) (L.V.G.J.,) 14/11/2025

¶55

Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. am

¶56

5/7

¶57

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

¶58

C.M.A(MD)No.850 of 2025

¶59

To:

¶60

1.The I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagercoil.

¶61

2.The Section Officer, ER/VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶62

6/7

¶63

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

¶64

C.M.A(MD)No.850 of 2025

¶65

P.VELMURUGAN,J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.

¶66

¶67

C.M.A(MD)No.850 of 2025

¶68

14/11/2025

¶69

7/7

¶70

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

The Branch Manager v. a.S.Mathu Mithan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. a.S.Mathu Mithan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naganathan Vs Maheshwari

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Tvl. Sree Snehavalli Textiles Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs R.Venkatesh Murugan

A.Kandasamy Vs K.Johnson David

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s.Ad-inn Advertising Services (P) Ltd.

The Branch Manager Vs Muthu Meena