The Divisional Manager Vs R.Venkatesh Murugan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

The Divisional Manager Vs R.Venkatesh Murugan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; award modified from Rs.38,90,064/- to Rs.37,40,064/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till deposit; appellant to deposit the amount with accrued interest and costs (less any amount already deposited) within eight weeks; on deposit, first claimant entitled to Rs.7,40,064/- (withdrawable) and minor claimants 2 and 3 to Rs.15 lakhs each, to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank initially for three years renewable until majority, father permitted to draw interest once in three months for the children's welfare; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the van driver, or whether the drivers of the two-wheeler and the auto also contributed negligence warranting contributory negligence and multi-vehicle apportionment of liability. +1 more

Court's answer

On re-appreciation of the evidence, the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van insured with the appellant Insurance Company; the vehicle was insured with the appellant and the policy was in force, so the Tribunal rightly fixed liability on the appellant.

Ratio / Principle

From the rough sketch Ex.P6, the van was supposed to proceed on the service road on the left but the accident occurred on the right side of the service road, showing the van rider went on the wrong side; the appellant led no contra evidence against the rough sketch or to show the left service road was blocked, hence the plea of contributory negligence against the two-wheeler driver and auto driver was unacceptable.

Key takeaways

The notional income of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal was based on oral and documentary materials (deceased earning Rs.12,326/- per Ex.P14 plus other part-time earnings) and the appellant produced no contra evidence; there is no perversity in the monthly income fixed.ratio¶62
Compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection is set aside; loss of consortium is modified so that the first claimant/husband alone gets Rs.40,000/- under consortium and claimants 2 and 3 get Rs.40,000/- each under loss of love and affection; the award under other heads and the rate of interest remain unaltered.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Insurance appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Aruppukottai award of Rs.38,90,064/- in M.C.O.P.No.3 of 2020 (fatal claim for Priya, pillion rider killed on 12.5.2018 in a multi-vehicle incident involving van TN 58 3207, two-wheeler TN 33 BH 2332 and auto TN 67 BY 2331). The Division Bench, order authored by P.Velmurugan, J., dismissed the appeal of the United India Insurance Company. On liability, the Court held, on re-appreciation of evidence and the Ex.P6 rough sketch, that the van travelled on the wrong side of the service road and the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the van driver; absent contra evidence, contributory negligence was not fixed on the two-wheeler rider or the auto driver. On quantum, the notional income of Rs.20,000/- was upheld (Ex.P14 salary certificate showed Rs.12,326/- p.m. plus other part-time earnings; no contra evidence from the appellant). The Tribunal's duplicate award of Rs.1,50,000/- under loss of love and affection was set aside; consortium was confined to the husband at Rs.40,000/- and the minor claimants 2 and 3 were granted Rs.40,000/- each under loss of love and affection; all other heads and the 7.5% interest rate stood unaltered. Final award: Rs.37,40,064/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.; deposit directed within eight weeks; first claimant to withdraw Rs.7,40,064/- and each minor to receive Rs.15 lakhs in fixed deposit until majority.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 13.11 .2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

C.M.A(MD)No.925 of 2025 and

C.M.P(MD)Nos.14052 and 17306 of 2025

The Divisional Manager, M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, 137, KPV complex, Pandalgudi Road, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District-66 101. ...Appellant/Second Respondent .Vs.

1.R.Venkatesh Murugan

2.Minor V.Prem 3.Minor V.Ashwin ... Respondents 1-3/Claimants 1-3 4.Rajathilagam ...Respondent No.4/Respondent No.1 T.Pandian(died) ......./Third Respondents 5.The Divisional Manager, M/s.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

1/15

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

T.P Hub, KJR Complex, First Floor, 16, North Veli Street, Madurai. ...5^th Respondent/Fourth Respondents

6.S.Udayathullah

7.The Branch Manager, M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company,In Sakthi Super market, Third floor, 408, Perundurai Road, Erode – 638 011. ..7^th Respondent/6^th Respondent

8.P.Kannan 9.P.Dhanapal ..Respondents 8 and 9/Respondents 7 and 8

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.3 of 2020 dated 21.4..2025, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Aruppukottai.

For Appellant : Mr.N.Ganesh For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Jothi Basu For Respondent-7 :Mr.V.Sakthivel For Respondents4,5,6,8 and 9 : No appearance

2/15

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

JUDGMENT

( Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN.,J)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.3 of 2020 dated 21.4..2025, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub-Court, Aruppukottai.

2.The parties are referred to herein as per their ranking before the Tribunal, for easy reference.

3.The Case of the claimant in brief is as follows:

On 12.5.2018, when the deceased Priya in M,.C.O.P.No.3 orf 2020 along with her husband Venkatesh Murugan(injured claimant in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2020) after seeing Cinema in Lakshmi Theatre, Aruppukkottai proceeding to their house in their two wheeler namely TN 33 BH 2332 Royal Enfield Bike near Aruppukkottai Bye pass driven by her husband at about 6.00 p.m. near Varadharaja Perumal Koil on eastern side in the service road when they are proceeding from north to south and at that time a van bearing Registration No. TN 58 3207 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed against 3/15

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

the above said vehicle and Priya fell down and at that time,auto bearing Registration No. TN 67 BY 2331 which came behind dashed against Priya and died on the spot and her husband Venkatesh Murugan sustained injuries. In this regard a case in Crime No.211/2018 under Section 279, 337 and 304 IPC was registered against the van driver. Hence the claimants in M.C.O.P No.3 of 2020 claimed a sum of Rs.75 lakhs as compensation.

4.The averments of the second respondent therein/appellant herein is as follows:

All the averments other than which are accepted has to be proved as per law and not sustainable in law. The fact that the first respondent is responsible for the accident is denied. The Injured claimant in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2020 only drove their vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Hence the driver of the two wheeler sustained injuries and the pillion rider Priya succumbed to injuries. The fifth respondent auto came in a high speed and dashed against the said priya and caused her death. Hence the fact that the first respondent is responsible for the accident is denied. The averments regarding the education, avocation and other things about the deceased and injured are all false.

4/15

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

The amount claimed is excessive and hence, the claim petition has to be dismissed.

5.The averments in the counter filed by the fourth respondent is as follows: The averments other than which are accepted are to be proved as per law and they are not acceptable. This respondent is not responsible for the accident. The case was registered only against the first respondent diver. Further the deceased in this claim petition has no employment. The compensation claimed under different heads are excessive and they have to be proved in the manner known to law and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6.The averments in the counter of sixth respondent therein is as follows:

The averments other than which are accepted are to be proved as per law and not acceptable to this respondent. There is no fault on the fifth respondent driver and hence the sixth respondent is not responsible for payment of any compensation to the claimants. The facts about the legal heirs of the deceased are not true. The averments regarding the education, avocation are not true and that has to be proved in the manner known to law. Further the claim of compensation

5/15

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

under different heads are excessive. The claimants are only eligible for 6% interest, if any award is ordered by the Tribunal. Hence this respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

7.On joint trial in M.C.O.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2020, on the side of the claimants , P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to P21 were marked. On the side of the respondents, One Balamurugan was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. On appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.,38,90,064/- as compensation in M.C.O.PNo.3 of 2020 and awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2020 with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.3 of 2020, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are three vehicles involved in the accident whereas the tribunal fixed the liability only against the van driver insured with the appellant. Therefore the Tribunal had erroneously fixed the liability on the van driver alone whereas the driver of the two wheeler also contributed to the accident and also the auto came behind the

6/15

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

two wheeler and due to their negligence contributed to the accident. The tribunal failed to take into consideration the negligence of the two wheeler and auto. If the driver of the two wheeler is cautious, he could avoid the accident. Though the driver of the van contributed to the accident, driver of the two wheeler and auto also contributed to the cause of the accident, which fact was omitted to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Further the learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the case registered against he driver of the van ended in acquittal. Further this is a case of head on collision. Therefore the driver of both the two wheeler and van has contributed to the cause of the accident and the damage mentioned in the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report is also not taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

9.The learned counsel for the 7^th respondent would submit that there are two claim petitions, one is for fatal and another one is in respect of the injured. Now the appellant filed this appeal challenging the award passed in the fatal case and not challenged the award in the injured case. Once the appellant admitted the negligence and also liability in the claim petition filed by the injured, he cannot challenge only the fatal case regarding liability and negligence.

7/15

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

10.The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the rider of the two wheeler is an injured witness who is also the eye witness to the accident who has clearly spoken about the manner of accident, negligence on the part of the drier of the van and also a case was registered against the van driver in Crime No.211 of 2018 for the offence under Section 279, 337 and 304 IPC. If the driver of the two wheeler is responsible for the accident, the driver of the van should give complaint against the rider or the two wheeler. Since negligence is only on his part, he has not filed any complaint as against the driver of the two wheeler or against the auto driver. Further he has not challenged the liability fixed in the injured case. The appeal filed by the appellant has no merits.

11.Further the learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the quantum and would submit that as per salary certificate marked as ExP14, which shows that at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs.12,326/- p.m. However the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.20,000/- which is highly exorbitant. Further though the claimants were awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium. The tribunal has also awarded compensation under

8/15

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

the head of loss of love and affection which is also against the settled proposition. Therefore the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and contributory negligence to be fixed on the driver of the auto as well as driver of the two wheeler.

12.The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that salary certificate of the deceased is issued only for her part time work and beyond that the deceased also doing other work and earning a considerable sum. Considering the above fact, the tribunal fixed the notional income and a reasonable award was passed which is just compensation and there is no merit in the appeal.

13.Heard the submissions of either side and perused the records.

14.Admittedly, the accident is not in dispute, however, the appellant only vehemently contended that negligence is only on the part of the driver of auto and driver of the two wheeler has also contributed negligence for the cause of the accident and that aspect has to be considered. However, a reading of the evidence of P.W.1 who is none other than the injured person in the accident and therefore

9/15

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

the presence of P.W.1 is not denied. However on a perusal of rough sketch filed by the claimants which is marked as Ex.P6, the accident took place on the service road and adjacent to that there is four ways. Service road is on the leftern side. Therefore the van is supposed to go in the service road which is in the left side and the accident took place on the right side of the service road . The Van supposed not to go on that side which clearly shows that rider of the van went on the wrong side and therefore he cannot expect road users from other side vehicle come in the opposite direction and he has not examined any witness ie. Driver of the two wheeler who has also contributed his negligence and to show that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the two wheeler and that the appellant has not let in any contra evidence and produced any contra materials against the rough sketch and has not produced any materials to show that the service road in the right side was blocked and the service road in the left side was put in use and all the vehicles passing only through the service road in which the accident took place. Therefore in the absence of any contra evidence, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable.

10/15

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

15.Therefore on re-appreciating the evidence, this Court finds that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The vehicle was insured with the appellant and the policy was also in force and therefore in these circumstances the tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the appellant.

16.As far as quantum is concerned, Ex.P14 Salary certificate would show that the deceased was earning Rs.12,326/- at the time of accident and also doing other part time work and earned a considerable sum. Therefore the tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 fixed the notional income at Rs.20,000/-.The appellant has not produced any contra evidence to prove that the deceased never had any employment. Therefore the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is based on materials both oral and documentary. Therefore this Court does not find any perversity in fixing the monthly income of the deceased. However the Tribunal awarded compensation under the loss of consortium for three claimants at Rs.40,000/- each and also Rs.50,000/- each to all the three claimants under the head of loss of love and affection. Therefore the compensation awarded under the head or loss of love and affection is set aside and award under the head of loss of

11/15

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

consortium is modified to the effect that the fist claimant husband is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of consortium and claimants 2 and 3 each are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of love and affection. The award under the other heads and the rate of interest remains unaltered.

17.Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to compensation as follows:

S.No	Name of the heads	Awarded by the Tribunal	Awarded by this Court	Remarks
1	For loss of dependency and futureprospects	Rs.35,84,064/-	Rs.35,84,064/-	same
2	For loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-	same
3	For funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-	same
4	For loss of consortium to the first claimant- husband	Rs.1,20,000/-	Rs.40,000/- only to the husband	modified
5.	For loss of love affection	Rs.1,50,000/-	-----	Set aside
6.	For loss of love and affection to claimants 2 and 3		Rs.80,000/-	Newly awarded
7	For transport expenses	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.5000/-	Same

12/15

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

8.

For loss of clothe and Rs.1000/Rs.1000/things 9 Total Rs.38,90,064 Rs.37,40,064/- modified

18.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the award amount is modified from Rs.,38,90,064/- to Rs.37,40,064/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date orf claim petition till the date of detposit.The appellant is directed to deposit the above said award amount with accrued inteest and costs, less the award amount, if any already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the first claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,40,064/- and the minor claimants 2 and 3 are each entitled to 15 lakhs each, with proportionate accrued interest and costs and the first claimn,t is permitted to withdraw the above said amount, less the award amount, if any already withdrawn. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimants 2 and 3 in any one of the nationalized bank, initially for a period of three years renewable therearter till the minors attain majority. The first claimant/father of the minor claimants is permitted to withdraw interest from the deposit of minors once in three months directly from the bank and utilize the 13/15

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

same for the welfare of the children. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

[P.V.,J.] [L.V.G.,J.] 13.11.2025

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn

To The Judge, Sub Court, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Aruppukkottai.

Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

14/15

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

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

vsn

ORDER MADE IN

C.M.A(MD)No.925 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.14052 and 17306 of 2025

13.11.2025

15/15

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