C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved On 24.04.2026

Pronounced On 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023, 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

and

C.M.P.(MD).Nos.1323 & 1327 of 2023 and 9408 of 2024

C.M.A.(MD).No.140 of 2023

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd,

through its Branch Manager,

Having its Office at No.184/9b/7

V.V.D.Main Road,

Near State Bank of India,

Tuticorin. ... Appellant

Vs.

1.T.Nallammal

2.T.Perinbam

3.T.Enbarani

4.M.Mariappan ... Respondents

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.

1386 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional

District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 24.06.2022.

1/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

For Appellant : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari

For Respondents : ----

C.M.A.(MD).No.141 of 2023

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd,

through its Branch Manager,

Having its Office at No.184/9b/7

V.V.D.Main Road,

Near State Bank of India,

Tuticorin. ... Appellant

Vs.

1.V.Muthuraj

2.Minor Santhya

3.Minor Mahalakshmi

(Minor 2

nd

and 3

rd

respondents represented through guardian and next

friend their father Muthuraj 1

st

respondent)

4.M.Mariappan ... Respondents

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.

266 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional

District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 24.06.2022.

For Appellant : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari

For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvaraj R1 to R3

2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

C.M.A.(MD).No.142 of 2023

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd,

through its Branch Manager,

Having its Office at No.184/9b/7

V.V.D.Main Road,

Near State Bank of India,

Tuticorin. ... Appellant

Vs.

1.C.Sasikumar

2.M.Mariappan ... Respondents

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the

sMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in

M.C.O.P.No.625 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I

Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 24.06.2022.

For Appellant : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari

For Respondents : ---

C.M.A.(MD).No.143 of 2023

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd,

through its Branch Manager,

Having its Office at No.184/9b/7

V.V.D.Main Road,

Near State Bank of India,

Tuticorin. ... Appellant

Vs.

1.Minor Mahalakshmi

3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

(Minor respondent represented through guardian and next friend of her

father V.Muthuraj)

2.M.Mariappan ... Respondents

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.

678 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional

District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 24.06.2022.

For Appellant : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari

For Respondents : ---

C.M.A.(MD).No.144 of 2023

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd,

through its Branch Manager,

Having its Office at No.184/9b/7

V.V.D.Main Road,

Near State Bank of India,

Tuticorin. ... Appellant

Vs.

1.Minor Murugalakshmi @ Roshini

(Minor respondent through guardian and next friend and her father

Kannan)

2.M.Mariappan ... Respondents

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.

704 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional

4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 24.06.2022.

For Appellant : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari

For Respondents : ---

C.M.A.(MD).No.835 of 2023

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd,

through its Branch Manager,

Having its Office at No.184/9b/7

V.V.D.Main Road,

Near State Bank of India,

Tuticorin. ... Appellant

Vs.

1.V.Muthuraj

2.M.Mariappan ... Respondents

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.

2012 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional

District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 24.06.2022.

For Appellant : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari

For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvaraj for R1

5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

C.M.A.(MD).No.876 of 2024

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd,

through its Branch Manager,

Having its Office at No.184/9b/7

V.V.D.Main Road,

Near State Bank of India,

Tuticorin. ... Appellant

Vs.

1.C.Tamilarasi

2.C.Karthik Murugan

3.C.Perinbam

4.C.Kandasami

5.C.Sasikumar

6.M.Mariappan ... Respondents

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.

265 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional

District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 24.06.2022.

For Appellant : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari

For Respondents : --

6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

COMMON J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J.)

The second respondent, namely, Reliance General Insurance Company,

Tuticorin, has preferred this batch of appeals challenging the common award,

dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Tribunal, whereby liability was fastened upon

the insurer.

2.Brief facts of the case:

According to the claim petitions, the injured claimants as well as the

deceased were travelling in a Mahindra maxi cab bearing Registration No.

TN-69-AF-5182, insured with the appellant, on 21.05.2017 at about 10:45 p.m.

When the said vehicle was proceeding from west to east on the Tirunelveli–

Tuticorin National Highway, near Valanadu, Maruthur Keela Vaikal Bridge, the

driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the

vehicle capsized. Consequently, several occupants sustained multiple injuries,

and some succumbed to the injuries.

2.1.In respect of the said occurrence, a First Information Report in Crime

No. 94 of 2017 was registered by the jurisdictional police for offences under

7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the

injured claimants and the legal representatives of the deceased filed separate

claim petitions in M.C.O.P. Nos.1386 of 2017, 265, 266, 625, 678, 704 and

2012 of 2018 before the Tribunal, seeking compensation.

3.Case of the Insurance Company

The insurer filed its counter denying the manner of the accident and

specifically contended that the vehicle in question was a maxi cab with a

permitted seating capacity of 13+1 as per the Registration Certificate, and the

insurance policy also covered only 13+1 persons. It was further contended that

at the time of the accident, about 35 persons were travelling in the vehicle, in

total violation of policy conditions and permit terms. On that basis, the insurer

sought total exoneration from liability.

3.1.The owner of the vehicle (first respondent) also filed a counter

denying liability.

4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, witnesses were

examined and documents were marked in each case. On the side of the

respondents, one witness was examined and the insurance policy was marked as

Ex.R1, which is as follows:

8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

M.C.O.P.No.Witnesses

examined on

the side of the

claimants

Witnesses

examined on

the side of the

respondent

Documents

marked on the

side of the

claimants

Documents

marked on the

side of the

respondent

Witness

documents.

1386 of 2017P.W.1 and P.W.

2

R.W.1 Ex.P1 to Ex.P8Ex.R1 Ex.X1 to

Ex.X5

265 of 2018P.W.1 to P.W.4R.W.1 Ex.P1 to Ex.P.

35

Ex.R1 --

266 of 2018P.W.1 to P.W.4R.W.1 Ex.P1 to Ex.P.

35

Ex.R1 --

625 of 2018P.W.1 to P.W.4R.W.1 Ex.P1 to Ex.P.

35

Ex.R1 --

678 of 2018P.W.1 to P.W.4R.W.1 Ex.P1 to Ex.P.

35

Ex.R1 --

704 of 2018P.W.1 to P.W.4R.W.1 Ex.P1 to Ex.P.

35

Ex.R1 --

2012 of 2018P.W.1 to P.W.4R.W.1 Ex.P1 to Ex.P.

35

Ex.R1 --

5.Finding of the Tribunal:

Upon consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal rejected the plea

of the insurer that the accident occurred due to overloading and consequently

declined to exonerate the insurer from liability and awarded the following

compensation under various heads:

5.1.M.C.O.P.No.1386 of 2017

Sl.

No

Heads Calculation

1Salary Rs.40,000/- per month

2Future Prospects at 30% Rs.40,000/- + Rs.12,000/-

Rs.52,000/-

3Annual Income of the deceased that he would

have earned if he was alive

Rs.52,000/- X 12 = Rs.6,42,000/-

9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

4Deduction of Income Tax Out of Total Income Rs.6,42,000/-

Rs.2,50,000/- (Nil) For remaining

Rs.2,50,000/- X 10% = 25,000/-

Rs.1,24,000 X 20% = 24,800/-

=Rs.49,800/-

I.T.Cess 3% = Rs.1494/-

=Rs.49,800 + 1494/-

=Rs.51,294/-

5Total income after deduction of Income TaxRs.6,24,000/- (-) Rs.51,294/-

=Rs.5,72,706/-

61/3

rd

of the income (ii) deducted as personal

expenses of the deceased

Rs.5,72,706/- (-) Rs.1,90,902/-

=Rs.3,81,804/-

7Compensation after multiplier of 13 is appliedRs.3,81,804/- X 13

=Rs.49,63,452/-

8Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000/-

9Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-

10Loss of consortium to wife Rs.1,00,000/-

11Loss of consortium to the two children

each Rs.1,00,000/-

Rs.2,00,000/-

Total compensation awarded Rs.53,78,452

5.2.M.C.O.P.No.265 of 2018

Sl.No.Heads Calculation

1 Salary Rs.10,000/- per month

2 Future Prospects at 10% Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,000/-

Rs.11,000/-

3 ¼ of the income (ii) deducted as

personal expenses of the deceased

Rs.11,000/- (-) Rs.2,750/-

Rs.8,250/-

4 Compensation after multiplier of 11

is applied

Rs.8,250/- X 12 X 11

=Rs.10,89,000/-

5 Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/-

6 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-

7 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-

Total compensation awarded Rs.11,59,000/-

10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

5.3.M.C.O.P.No.266 of 2018

Sl.No. Heads Calculation

1 Salary Rs.8,000/- per month

2 Future Prospects at 40% Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-

Rs.11,200/-

3 1/3 of the income (ii) deducted as personal

expenses of the deceased

Rs.11,200/- (-) Rs.

3,733/-

Rs.7,467/-

4 Compensation after multiplier of 15 is

applied

Rs.7,467/- X 12 X 15

Rs.13,44,060/-

5 Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-

6 Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000/-

7 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-

Total Compensation awarded Rs.15,59,060/-

5.4.M.C.O.P.No.625 of 2018

Sl.

No

Heads Calculation

1 Loss of earning Power Rs.21,16,800/-

2.Medical Expenses Rs.2,83,677/-

3 Attendant Charges Rs.15,000/-

4 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/-

5 Transport Expenses Rs.23,000/-

6 Extra Nourishment Rs.50,000/-

Total compensation awarded Rs.25,38,477/-

11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

5.5.M.C.O.P.No.678 of 2018

Sl.N

o

Heads Calculation

1 Pain and Sufferings

extra nourishment

Transport

Attendant expenses

Rs.83,800/-

2 Medical Expenses Rs.16,200/-

Total Compensation awarded Rs.1,00,000/-

5.6.M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2018

Sl.

No

Heads Calculation

1 Pain and Sufferings

extra nourishment

Transport

Attendant expenses

Rs.54,800/-

2 Medical Expenses Rs,45,200/-

Total compensation awarded Rs.1,00,000/-

5.7.M.C.O.P.No.2012 of 2018

Sl.

No

Heads Calculation

1Pain and Sufferings

extra nourishment

Transport

Attendant expenses

Rs.50,000/-

2Medical Expenses Rs.95,200/-

Total Compensation awarded Rs/1,45,200/-

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed.

12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

6.Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/insurance company:

The learned counsel for the appellant–insurer contended that there was a

fundamental breach of policy conditions, inasmuch as the vehicle carried

passengers far in excess of the permitted capacity. It was further submitted that

such overloading contributed to the accident, and therefore the insurer cannot

be held liable. In the alternative, it was argued that at least a “pay and recovery”

order ought to have been passed in view of the violation of permit conditions.

6.1.The learned counsel also assailed the quantum of compensation in

certain cases, particularly in M.C.O.P. No. 266 of 2018, contending that

excessive amounts were awarded under the heads of loss of consortium and loss

of estate.

7.Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/claimants:

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that

mere overloading, by itself, does not absolve the insurer of liability, especially

when the number of claimants falls within the number of persons covered under

the policy. It was further submitted that unless a causal connection between the

breach and the accident is established, the insurer cannot avoid liability.

13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

7.1.In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the principles

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are as follows:

(i)In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Anjana Shyam

and others reported in 2007 (2) TNMAC 193(SC)

(ii)In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Reena Devi and

others reported in 2015 (13) SCC 359

(iii) In the case of Subodh Kumar Gupta vs. Guruwari Devi and others

reported in 2010 (1) TNMAC 398 (Division Bench of the Jharkand High

Court).

7.2.However, the learned counsel for the claimants fairly conceded that

the amounts awarded under the conventional heads such as loss of consortium

and loss of estate were in excess of the limits prescribed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

8.This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company and the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents/claimants and perused the materials available on

record, including the precedents relied upon by both sides.

14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

9.Points for Determination:

9.1.The common questions that arise for consideration in this batch of

Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are:

(i)Whether the overloading of passengers in the appellant-insured maxi

cab constitutes a fundamental breach of policy conditions so as to exonerate the

insurer from liability to pay compensation?

(ii)Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was

justified in fastening liability upon the insurer without direction of “pay and

recovery,” despite the admitted overloading?

(iii)Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of

consortium and loss of estate in certain claim petitions is excessive and

contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi?

10.Findings and Reasons

At the outset, before adverting to the issue of overloading, this Court is

duty-bound to examine the legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court on the effect of breach of policy conditions.

15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

10.1.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 445 held that when a vehicle

is overloaded beyond the number of passengers permitted, the insurance

company is liable for the number of passengers for whom the policy provides

coverage and the relevant paragraphs are as follows:

“20. In spite of the relevant provisions of the statute,

insurance still remains a contract between the owner and the insurer

and the parties are governed by the terms of their contract. The

statute has made insurance obligatory in public interest and by way

of social security and it has also provided that the insurer would be

obliged to fulfil his obligations as imposed by the contract and as

overseen by the statute notwithstanding any claim he may have

against the other contracting party, the owner, and meet the claims

of third parties subject to the exceptions provided in Section 149(2)

of the Act. But that does not mean that an insurer is bound to pay

amounts outside the contract of insurance itself or in respect of

persons not covered by the contract at all. In other words, the

insured is covered only to the extent of the passengers permitted to

be insured or directed to be insured by the statute and actually

covered by the contract.

16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

21. The High Court has considered only the aspect whether by

overloading the vehicle, the owner had put the vehicle to a

use not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used.

This aspect is different from the aspect of determining the

extent of the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of

the passengers of a stage carriage insured in terms of Section

147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. We are of the view that the Insurance

Company can be made liable only in respect of the number

of passengers for whom insurance can be taken under the

Act and for whom insurance has been taken as a fact and

not in respect of the other passengers involved in the

accident in a case of overloading.

10.2.The Division Bench of the Jharkand High Court, headed by Hon'ble

Thiru Justice M. Y. Eqbal, J. (as he then was) in the case of Subodh Kumar

Gupta vs. Guruwari Devi reported in 2010 SCC Online Jhar 63 declined to

accept the similar plea of the insurance company that the learned Tribunal

Judge has failed to grant award of pay and recovery and held as follows:

“8. Admittedly on the relevant date of accident, mini bus

was carrying 50-60 passengers. It has not been brought on

record that by reason of the said accident more than 21 persons

died or sustained injuries. From the records it appears that 8

persons died in the said accident and 8 claim cases were filed. In

such circumstances the Insurance Company cannot disown its

liability for payment of compensation in respect of death of at

17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

least 21 persons covered under the policy.

10. After having considered the facts and evidence on record and

in the light of the law settled by the Supreme Court, we have no

hesitation in holding that the Tribunal erred in law in giving

right to the Insurance Company to recover the compensation

amount from the appellant-owner of the vehicle.”

10.3.In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Reena Devi,

reported in (2015) 13 SCC 359 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the

finding of the tribunal that overloading cannot be said that there is any breach

of condition of permit and hence, the insurance company is liable to pay

compensation and held as follows:

“15.... Moreover only because of overloading, it cannot be said

that there is any breach of conditions of the permit. A reference in

this regard may be made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Nanded-Parbhani

Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh [(2000) 2 SCC 69 : 2000 SCC (Cri)

318 : (2000) 125 PLR 558] , wherein at PLR p. 561 in para 8 the

following proposition of law has been laid down: (SCC p. 74,

para 11)

‘11. … But carrying passengers more than the number

specified in the permit will not be a violation of the

purpose for which the permit is granted....”

18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

10.4.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 297 reiterated the

principle that in the case of overloading, the insurance company is liable to pay

compensation to the number of the persons covered under the policy without

the order of pay and recovery and in the case of the injured or deceased in

excess of the permitted persons covered under the policy, the insurance

company is liable to pay and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle

and the relevant paragraph reads as follows:

“36. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is confined to

the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and

not beyond the same. In other words, as in the present case,

since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered

six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver,

the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons

only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in

the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be

treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid

in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make

payment of the compensation amount as far as they are

concerned. However, the liability of the Insurance Company

to make payment even in respect of persons not covered by the

insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub-section

(1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover

the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the

policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle.”

19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

10.5.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is

clear that, not every breach of policy condition would absolve the insurer and

the breach must be fundamental in nature and consequently, carrying

passengers in excess of the permitted seating capacity does not amount to a

violation of the purpose for which the permit was granted. Therefore, the

insurance company remains liable to compensate for the number of passengers

covered under the policy. In cases involving excess passengers, namely,

passengers travelling beyond the permitted seating capacity, the insurer is liable

to indemnify only in respect of the persons covered under the policy. In respect

of passengers travelling in excess of the number covered by the insurance

policy, the principle of “pay and recover” alone would apply, whereby the

insurer is directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and thereafter

recover the amount from the insured. So far as the passengers covered under the

policy are concerned, there is no question of applying the principle of “pay and

recover.” The said principle arises only in respect of excess passengers

travelling beyond the number covered under the policy.

10.6.The strong reliance placed by the learned counsel for the insurance

company on Akula Narayana vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

& Another (2025 INSC 1301) is misplaced and not applicable to the facts of

the present case. In the instant matter, the Tribunal had directed “pay and

recovery,” and the insured did not prefer any appeal against the said finding.

Furthermore, the facts of the cited case are distinguishable, as it involved a

dispute regarding payment of premium for gratuitous passengers. In contrast, in

the present case, the deceased and the injured persons are not gratuitous

passengers, and therefore, the ratio of the said judgment cannot be applied.

10.7.In the present case, though it is not in dispute that the vehicle

carried passengers in excess of the permitted seating capacity, the material on

record does not establish that the accident occurred on account of such

overloading. The Tribunal has also recorded a categorical finding that the

accident was the result of rash and negligent driving, and not due to

overcrowding. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the said finding

without any contra evidence on the side of the appellant insurance company.

10.8.Further, it is to be noted that the claims in question pertain only to

such number of persons who would fall within the seating capacity covered

under the policy. In such circumstances, the mere travel of additional

passengers, by itself, cannot be construed as a ground to deny liability vis-à-vis

21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

those claimants who are otherwise covered under the policy. This position is

made clear by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veena

Devi, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam. Therefore, Where

the deceased or injured person falls within the number of passengers covered by

the insurance policy, the insurer cannot avoid its statutory liability, nor can it

seek recovery from the insured. The principle of “pay and recover” is

applicable only in cases where the claim relates to passengers travelling in

excess of the number permitted under the policy. Therefore, the contention of

the insurance company that, even in respect of the passengers covered under the

policy, merely because the insured plied the vehicle with overloaded

passengers, they are entitled to satisfy the award and thereafter recover the

amount from the insured, cannot be accepted.

10.9.Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability upon the

appellant–insurer is affirmed.

11. Quantum of Compensation

However, insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this

22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

Court finds substance in the contention of the appellant that the amounts

awarded under the conventional heads are in excess of the limits prescribed

in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

11.1.In M.C.O.P. No. 1386 of 2018,

Loss of estate awarded at Rs.1,00,000/- is reduced to Rs.25,000/-.

Loss of consortium awarded to the spouse at Rs.1,00,000/- is reduced to

Rs.40,000/-.

Consortium awarded to each of the children at Rs.1,00,000/- is reduced

to Rs.40,000/- each.

Consequently, the total compensation is proportionately reduced from Rs.

53,78,452/- to the recalculated sum.

Sl.

No

Heads Compensation

awarded by the

tribunal

Re quantified by

this Court

remarks

1Loss of income Rs.49,63,452/-Rs.49,63,452/-Confirmed

2Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.25,000/-Reduced

3Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-Confirmed

4Loss of consortium to wifeRs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/-Reduced

5Loss of consortium to the

two children

each Rs.1,00,000/-

Rs.2,00,000/-Rs.40,000/- (each)

Rs.80,000/-

Reduced

Total compensation awardedRs.53,78,452Rs.51,23,452/-Reduced

11.2.Similarly, in M.C.O.P. No. 266 of 2018,

Loss of consortium is reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

Loss of estate is reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.

Except for the above modifications under the conventional heads, the

award of the Tribunal under other heads does not warrant interference which is

as follows:

Sl.

No.

Heads Compensation

awarded by the

tribunal

Re quantified by

this Court

remarks

1Loss of Income Rs.13,44,060/-Rs.13,44,060/-Confirmed

2Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-Rs.40,000/-Reduced

3Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000/-Rs.25,000/-Reduced

4Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-Confirmed

Total Compensation awardedRs.15,59,060/-Rs.14,24,060/-Reduced

12.Conclusion:

12.1.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.140 of 2023 is

partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P. No.1386 of

2017, dated 24.06.2022, is reduced to Rs.51,23,452/- from Rs.53,78,452/- with

interest of 7.5% from date of the claim petition. The appellant/Insurance

Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit,

the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares. There shall be

no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is

24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

closed.

12.2.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.141 of 2023 is

partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P. No.266 of 2018,

dated 24.06.2022, is reduced to Rs.14,24,060/- from Rs.15,59,060/- with

interest of 7.5% from date of the claim petition. The appellant/Insurance

Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit,

the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares. There shall be

no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

12.3.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A.(MD).Nos.142, 143,

144, 835 and 876 of 2023 are dismissed and the compensation awarded by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli, in

M.C.O.P.Nos.625, 678, 704, 2012 and 265 of 2018, dated 24.06.2022, are

hereby confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

award amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their

25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

respective shares. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

[N.A.V.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]

01.06.2026

NCC :Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

Index :Yes/No

sbn

To

1.The Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal,

I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli

2. The Section Officer,

VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023 and 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

and

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

sbn

Pre-delivery judgment made in

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.140 to 144 of 2023, 835 of 2023 and 876 of 2024

and

C.M.P.(MD).Nos.1323 & 1327 of 2023 and 9408 of 2024

Dated: 01.06.2026

27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis