Dismissed¶63

The Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd v. M.Rathinasamy

Madras HC20 Jul 2026CMA/241/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court CMA dismissed — insurer's appeal against MCOP award of Rs.35,84,000/- — contributory negligence — deceased not wearing helmet not determinative of negligence — crossing from village road onto highway — PW2 eyewitness evidence — rash and negligent driving of tipper lorry — monthly income Rs.20,000/- proved by employer's witness PW3 and Exs.P14-P17 (GPR Textiles registration) — multiplier 15 — Section 173 Motor Vehicle Act — award dated 31.10.2025 confirmed — no evidence adduced by insurance company on contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; Tribunal award dated 31.10.2025 in MCOP.No.401 of 2025 (Old MCOP.No.751 of 2022) confirmed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.2945 of 2026) closed ¶63

The Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs M.Rathinasamy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in not fastening contributory negligence on the deceased, who allegedly crossed the highway suddenly from the Village Road +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The evidence of PW2 shows that the deceased came from the Village Road and proceeded carefully, and the offending lorry came from the West to East in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her; the driver had a clear view and ought to have controlled the vehicle

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the deceased was not wearing a helmet cannot be a determinative factor to hold that she was negligent

¶56

Key takeaways

Contributory negligence must be proved by evidence; the Insurance Company adduced no evidence on record, hence the plea of negligence on the part of the deceased failsratio¶57
PW3's evidence, supported by Exs.P14 to P17 (including the Registration Certificate of GPR Textiles), proved that the deceased worked in GPR Textiles at Rs.20,000/- per month; no contra evidence was adduced; the Tribunal rightly took the salary, applied the correct multiplier and awarded compensationratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims — Appeal by insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act against award of Rs.35,84,000/- in MCOP — Contributory negligence: though the accident occurred on the highway and the deceased was not wearing a helmet, non-wearing of helmet is not a determinative factor of negligence; PW2's evidence showed the deceased proceeded carefully from the Village Road while the tipper lorry came from west to east in a rash and negligent manner; the insurer adduced no evidence of contributory negligence, so the plea fails. Quantum: monthly income of Rs.20,000/- proved through PW3 (employee of GPR Textiles) with Exs.P14 to P17 including the company's Registration Certificate; no contra evidence; multiplier 15 upheld. Appeal dismissed and Tribunal award confirmed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. (Madras High Court, N. Sathish Kumar J. authoring for the Bench of N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman, JJ., 20-07-2026)

¶1

CMA No. 241 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

CMA No. 241 of 2026 and CMP.No.2945 of 2026

¶7

The Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Rep. by Assistant Vice President (Legal), Policy Servicing Branch, 2nd Floor, No.43-B, Sri Abhirami Tower, Cowly Brown Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore.

¶8

Appellant(s)

¶9

¶10

M.Rathinasamy 2.Minor R.Adithya Rep by its Natural Guardian Father and Next Friend M.Rathinasamy

3.R.Perumalsamy

4.Mallika

5.P.Suresh

6.S.Sivakumar Respondent(s)

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act to set aside the judgment and decree award dated 31.10.2025 in MCOP No.401 of 2025 (Old MCOP No.751 of 2022) on the file of the learned Special District Court No.I to deal with MCOP Cases, Coimbatore (Special District Judge, III ADJC, Coimbatore).

¶16

For Appellant(s): Mr.R.Sunilkumar

¶17

For Respondent(s): Ms.C.Abirami Dharanya for R1 to R4 No appearance for R5 & R6 JUDGMENT

¶18

(Judgment made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

¶19

Challenging the award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.401 of 2025

¶20

(Old MCOP.No.751 of 2022) dated 31.10.2025, the instant appeal has been filed

¶21

by the Insurance Company.

¶22

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

¶23

CMA No. 241 of 2026

¶24

The main grounds urged by the Insurance Company is that the

¶25

deceased suddenly crossed the Highways from the Village Road in her scooter, therefore, negligent is also there on her part, hence, the Tribunal ought to have imposed contributory negligence. Further to prove that the deceased was a typist, no documents whatsoever was filed, therefore, the Tribunal fixing monthly income at Rs.20,000/- is not fair. On these two grounds, the Award of the Tribunal is sought to be interfered.

¶26

Brief facts in filing the appeal is as follows:-

¶27

3.a. The deceased aged about 40 years as on 24.11.2021, at about 08.50

¶28

a.m, was riding her TVS Scooty Pep Plus bearing Regn.No.TN 99 L 6203, proceeding from south to north and while turning her eastern side at Kumarapalayam Pirivu , Palathurai to Pachapalayam Road, the Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.TN 37 BS 5169, driven by the 1st respondent which was also coming from west to east in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the two-wheeler and as a result, the deceased fell down under the wheels of the Tipper Lorry on its right back side and was dragged for nearly 10 feet and died on the spot. The claimants being the husband, son and parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition claiming compensation.

¶29

3.b. The third respondent Insurance Company admitting the accident,

¶30

however, disputed the negligence of the driver. According to them, the driver of

¶31

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

¶32

CMA No. 241 of 2026

¶33

the offending lorry was holding the driving license, the deceased was not

¶34

wearing the helmet and the income of the deceased is also disputed. The

¶35

Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:-

¶36

Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, resulting in the death of the deceased in the manner as alleged in the petition?

¶37

Whether the claim petitioners are entitled for compensation?

¶38

What is the quantum of compensation and who are all respondents liable to pay the compensation?

¶39

3.c. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, PW1 to PW3 were

¶40

examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no

¶41

oral and documentary evidences were adduced.

¶42

3.d. Based on the material and evidences, the Trial Court awarded the

¶43

compensation as follows:-

¶44

Sl.No.	Heads	Calculation
1	Monthly income + Future prospects @ 25%	Rs. 25,000/-
2	After deduction of 25% for her personal expenses from monthlyincome.	Rs.18,750/-
3	Annual contribution to family.	Rs. 2,25,000/-
4	Loss of income after applying multiplier 15	Rs.33,75,000/
5	For loss of Estate (after adding one revision)	Rs.16,500/-
6	Funeral Expenses (after adding one revision)	Rs.16,500/-
7	For loss of consortium Filial consortium to thepetitioners Rs.40,000/ + Rs.4,000/-	Rs. 1,76,000/-

¶45

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

¶46

CMA No. 241 of 2026

¶47

Sl.No.	Heads	Calculation
	(being 10% of Rs.40,000/-) for each
	petitioner comes to Rs.44,000/- x 4
Total com	pensation is fixed at	Rs.35,84,000/-

¶48

Challenging the same, the Insurance Company has preferred the instant civil miscellaneous appeal.

¶49

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for

¶50

the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the materials placed on record.

¶51

The accident is not in dispute. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was negligent on the part of the deceased, since she has crossed the road to the Highways suddenly from the Village Road, therefore, contributory negligence ought to be imposed. The evidence of PW2, in this regard, when carefully seen would indicate that the deceased had in fact came from the Village Road and proceeded carefully, the offending lorry came from the West to East in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Though the accident took place in the Highways, the fact remains that whenever there is a Village Road connecting to the Highways, normally, there will be a Sign Mark; in those areas, the drivers driving on the Highways should drive very carefully. In fact, accident has not happened immediately after crossing, the deceased had in fact entered Highways and proceeded East to West, this has been clearly spoken by PW2. In such case, the offending vehicle

¶52

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

¶53

CMA No. 241 of 2026

¶54

proceeding from West to East, the driver would have a clear view of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction, if the driver had taken a proper care and reduced the speed, the accident would not have happened.

¶55

Therefore, merely, because the deceased was not wearing helmet, that

¶56

cannot be a determinative factor to say that she was negligent. When the lorry driver had clearer view of the road and the deceased was proceeding in the opposite direction, the driver ought to have controlled the vehicle to avoid the accident which has not been done so, however, he dashed the two wheeler in the same direction. This itself clearly show that there was negligent on the part of the offending vehicle. Further, to prove the contributory negligence, there must be some evidence on the side of the Insurance Company, however, there is no evidence whatsoever available on record. Hence, the plea of negligence on the part of the deceased has to fail.

¶57

As far as the quantum is concerned, the second contention of the

¶58

learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased income has not been proved. It is relevant to note that PW3 is working in GPR textiles and through him Exs.P14 to P17 were marked. In his evidence, he has clearly stated that deceased was working in GPR Textiles. In fact, it is a registered company and she was drawing a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Ex.P15 is the Registration Certificate of the Company and PW3 was also issued with an Authorisation

¶59

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

¶60

CMA No. 241 of 2026

¶61

Certificate to give evidence. All these facts clearly shows that PW3 is working in GPR Textiles and there is no reason as to why he should give a false evidence before the Court. Further, no contra evidence was adduced that there was no such company in existence and they have not engaged the deceased at any point of time. Thus, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in taking into consideration of the salary and had applied correct multiplier and awarded the compensation. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merits in the appeal.

¶62

In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 31.10.2025 made in MCOP.No.401 of 2025 (Old MCOP.No.751 of 2022) on the file of the learned Special District Court No.I to deal with MCOP Cases, Coimbatore (Special District Judge, III ADJC, Coimbatore) is confirmed.

¶63

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶64

(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.)(M.JOTHIRAMAN J.) 20-07-2026

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

CMA No. 241 of 2026

¶68

¶69