Dismissed¶45

The Manager v. Senthilkumar Narayanasamy

Madras HC20 Jul 2026CMA/2230/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMA dismissed — motor accident compensation of Rs.32,29,265/- confirmed; insurer's plea of 20% contributory negligence (injured consumed alcohol) rejected; right leg amputated, 100% functional disability per Medical Board; age 44, multiplier 14, notional income Rs.12,500/- p.m. plus 25% future prospects per Pranay Sethi; pay-and-recover direction (insurer pays, recovers from owner) for want of valid fitness certificate; Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Senthilkumar Narayanasamy; MCOP.No.1422/2021, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tirupur; Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-insurer; the award dated 5.3.2025 in MCOP.No.1422/2021 stands confirmed; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.17075 of 2026) also dismissed; no costs. ¶45

The Manager Vs Senthilkumar Narayanasamy — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant-insurer; the award dated 5.3.2025 in MCOP.No.1422/2021 stands confirmed; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.17075 of 2026) also dismissed; no costs.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in not fixing contributory negligence on the injured claimant, who had consumed alcohol while riding, as contended by the insurer (20% contributory negligence sought). +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The Court found no merit in the insurer's appeal and no reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, thereby leaving undisturbed the Tribunal's findings, including on negligence and the rejection of the contributory-negligence plea.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal rightly awarded compensation in a total sum of Rs.32,29,265/-, which the Court held to be just, fair and proper.

¶44

Key takeaways

The Tribunal's computation was endorsed: the claimant's age was fixed at 44 years based on medical records and multiplier '14' applied, with notional monthly income of Rs.12,500/- and 25% added as future increase in income per the Pranay Sethi ratio.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (judgment by M. Jothiraman J., bench with N. Sathish Kumar J.) dismissed CMA No.2230 of 2026 preferred by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and confirmed the award dated 05.03.2025 in MCOP.No.1422/2021 (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tirupur) granting Rs.32,29,265/- to Senthilkumar Narayanasamy, whose right leg was amputated (Medical Board assessed 100% functional disability) after a rashly driven Mahindra Maxx Pickup dashed his motorcycle on 26.07.2021. The Tribunal fixed negligence on the pickup driver, took the claimant's age as 44 years from medical records, applied multiplier 14 on a notional monthly income of Rs.12,500/- with 25% future increase following National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC)], and — as the vehicle had no valid fitness certificate on the date of accident — directed the insurer to pay compensation and recover it from the owner. The insurer's plea for 20% contributory negligence on account of alcohol consumption by the injured did not find favour; the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.17075 of 2026) was also dismissed; no costs.

¶1

CMA No. 2230 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶8

CMA No. 2230 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 17075 OF 2026

¶9

The Manager Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., 1st Floor, Dhanam Towers, No.1, Binny Main Road, Tirupur 641 601.

¶10

..Appellant(s)

¶11

¶12

Senthilkumar Narayanasamy S/o. Narayanasamy, D.No.4/55, Kamarajar St, Jallipatti, Tirupur 642 11

¶13

D.M. Kumar S/o. M. Duraisamy, No.2, N.NO.64, KVP Layout, Tirupur Bazaar, Tirupur 641 604.

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

Prayer: To set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 5.3.2025 passed in MCOP.No. 1422/2021 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tirupur.

¶16

For Appellant(s): Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan For Respondent(s): Mr. E.N.Kandhasamy for R1

¶17

__________ Page1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

CMA No. 2230 of 2026

¶20

Judgment

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Jothiraman J.)

¶22

Unsuccessful Insurance Company has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, challenging the award dated 05.03.2025 in MCOP.No.1422/2021, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tiruppur.

¶23

According to the claimants, on 26.07.2021 at 19.00 hours, the injured Senthilkumar Narayanasamy was riding a Hero Honda vehicle, bearing Reg.No.TN 42 X 4036, on the Dhally to Udumalai road near Thinaikulam Indira Nagar. At that time, the driver of the Mahindra Maxx Pickup vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN 42 4615 was driving in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the said Hero Honda Bike, resulting in Senthilkumar Narayanasamy sustaining grievous injuries. Due to the injuries sustained, the claimant is unable to do his work and lost the earning capacity and accordingly, claimed compensation before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-.

¶24

The appellant Insurance Company / 2^nd respondent therein has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the injured had consumed alcohol at the time of accident and was walking carelessly which caused the accident. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent therein / appellant insurance company is no way liable to pay compensation.

¶25

Page2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

CMA No. 2230 of 2026

¶28

On the side of the claimants, the injured examined himself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board were marked as Exs.C1 & C2 and no oral evidence adduced. On the side of the respondent Insurance Company, Copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report was marked as Ex.R1. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal found that the Insured has established his case that the driver of the 1^st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal also finds that the vehicle was covered under insurance on the date of the accident and the insurance company cannot deny compensation in respect of 3^rd party claims. Since there was no valid fitness certificate on the date of the accident, the 2^nd respondent therein / appellant insurance company was directed to pay compensation and recover the same from the 1^st respondent / owner of the vehicle. Considering the injuries caused to the injured / claimant at the time of accident, the suffering caused by it, his age, occupation and income, awarded compensation in the following

¶29

heads:

¶30

Head of Compensation	Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.)
Loss of Income (Rs.1,87,500 x 14)	26,25,000
Loss of Pain and Suffering	70,000
Loss of Amenities	50,000
Medical Expenses	3,14,265
Future Expenses towards replacement of artificial limbs	1,00,000

¶31

__________ Page3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

CMA No. 2230 of 2026

¶34

Transportation Expenses	15,000
Nourishment Expenses	25,000
Attender Expenses	25,000
Damages to petitioner’s clothes	5,000
Total	32,29,265/-

¶35

Aggrieved over the same, the 2^nd respondent therein / appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was no eye witness to establish and fix negligence on the part of the driver of the injured vehicle. The injured has consumed alcohol while driving the vehicle and the same is mentioned in the Wound Certificate and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed 20% Contributory Negligence.

¶37

According to the injured / 1^st respondent, he was a Coolie worker at the

¶38

time of accident and his right leg was amputated due to the accident and it is impossible for him to continue his livelihood and the Medical Board sustained 100% functional disability of the claimant and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper.

¶39

It is seen from the records that the claimants has not produced any

¶40

records to prove his age and as such, the Tribunal fixed the claimant’s aged as 44 years based on medical records and applied the Multiplier “14”. The

¶41

Page4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

CMA No. 2230 of 2026

¶44

claimant was a Coolie worker at the time of accident and the monthly income was notionally fixed at Rs.12,500/-. By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC)] , 25% was added to the month income of the 44 years old injured, as future increase in income. Based on the evidence adduced and medical documents produced before the Tribunal and considering the loss of future income due to disability suffered by the claimants, medical expenses, expenses towards fixing the artificial limb incurred by the claimants, expenses towards replacement of artificial limbs, attender expenses and damages to clothes, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation in a total sum of Rs.32,29,265/-, which this Court is of the considered view is just, fair and proper. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and finds no merit in this appeal.

¶45

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the award dated 5.3.2025 passed in MCOP.No. 1422/2021 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tirupur. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶46

(N.S.K.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) 20-07-2026

¶47

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Jvm

¶48

Page5 of 6

¶49

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

¶50

CMA No. 2230 of 2026

¶51

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN J.