C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on: 22.01.2026

Pronounced on: 06.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026 and

C.M.P. No.30135 of 2025

C.M.A. No.3624 of 2025

Royal Sundaram General

Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.1. Club House Road, 2

nd

Floor

Subramaniam Building, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002. … Appellant

vs.

1. Mangaiyarkarasi

2. Arunachalam

3. M/s. Buildscape

No.1255, 1

st

Floor,

Golden Colony, Mogappair,

Chennai 600 050 … Respondents

Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

1. Mangaiyarkarasi

1/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

2. Arunachalam ...Cross Objectors

Vs.

1. M/s. Buildscape

No.1255, 1

st

Floor,

Golden Colony, Mogappair,

Chennai 600 050

2. Royal Sundaram General

Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.1. Club House Road, 2

nd

Floor

Subramaniam Building, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002. ...Respondents

Prayer in C.M.A. No.3624 of 2025: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, against the Award dated

12.12.2024 passed in M.C.O.P. No.4898 of 2019 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

Prayer in Cros. Obj. No.3 of 2026: Cross Objection is filed under Order

XXXXI Rule 22 of CPC to enhance the compensation amount awarded in the

judgment and decree dated 12.12.2024 passed in M.C.O.P. No.4898 of 2019

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of

Small Causes, Chennai.

C.M.A. No.3624 of 2025

For Appellant : Mr. S. Srinivasan

For Respondents : Mr. K. Balaji for R1 & R2

2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

R3 – No appearance

Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

For Cross Objectors: Mr. K. Balaji

For Respondents : Mr. S. Srinivasan for R2

R1 – No appearance

COMMON JUDGME NT

C.M.A. 3624/2025 has been filed by the Appellant / Insurance Company

questioning the negligence and quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.4898 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. Cross Objection in Cros.Obj. No.3 of 2026 has been filed by the

Appellants / claimants seeking to enhance the compensation awarded in the

said Award.

3. Both the matters arise out of the same accident and the same Award

and hence, disposed of by this common judgment.

3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their

ranking in the claim petition.

5. The claimants have filed MCOP No.4898/2019 on the file of the

Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of

their son A. Karuppaiah.

6. According to the claimants, on 04.07.2019, at about 11.30 hours,

while the victim was riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-09-CF

6682 from south to north direction along Anna Arch Flyover, opposite to

Tamil Nadu Medical Plant Farms and Herbal Medicine Corporation, a car

bearing Registration No. TN-13-L-4466 coming behind on the same direction

suddenly overtook the Motorcycle and applied sudden brake, as a result of

which, the victim lost control and collided with the side protection wall of the

bridge and fell form the over bridge and sustained multiple injuries all over

body. He was taken to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai, where he

succumbed to injuries on 07.07.2019. The accident occurred only due to the

negligent act of the driver of the car. Hence, the 2

nd

respondent / Insurance

4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

7. The claim is resisted by the 2

nd

Respondent / Insurance Company

stating that, the rider of the motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner

and collided with the rear left side of the car, lost control and fell down from

the bridge and succumbed to his injuries and that the 1

st

respondent’s car was

not involved in the accident. Hence, the 2

nd

Respondent Insurance Company

is not liable to pay compensation.

8. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the evidence

available on record, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the 1

st

respondent's driver to an extent of 70% and the

deceased to an extent of 30% and accordingly, awarded compensation as

hereunder:

Loss of Income Rs.22,68,000/-

Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-

Loss of Consortium Rs.80,000/-

Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-

Transportation charges

including damages to

Rs.10,000/-

5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

personal belongings

Total Rs.23,88,000/-

Less 30% towards

contributory negligence

Rs.7,16,400/-

-------------------

Compensation payable Rs.16,71,600

9. Questioning the contributory negligence fixed by the tribunal and the

quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the 2

nd

respondent /

Insurance Company has filed C.M.A.No.No.3624/2025 and the Claimants

have filed Cros. Obj. No.3 of 2026.

10. Mr. S.Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company in CMA 3624/2025 argued that the accident occurred only due to

the rash and negligent driving of the deceased rider of the motorcycle who is

the tortfeasor , who not only drove the motor cycle in a reckless manner but

also without maintaining a proper distance while following the vehicle as

mandated by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence the

apportionment of liability to an extent of 70% on the appellant by the Tribunal

is erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have apportioned some more extent on the

6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

deceased who is the tortfeasor. He would submit that the rider of the

motorcycle moving behind the appellant's vehicle ought to have kept a

sufficient distance and avoided collusion. His further submission is that the

petition filed by the claimants was under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act and not under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, the entire

responsibility is on the claimants to establish that, the appellant's vehicle

driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the

accident. Therefore, proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the

claimants, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining an application under

Section 166 of the Act. The FIR was brought on record for the purpose of

proving the accident and not for fixing the liability on the part of driver of the

insured vehicle involved in the accident. The factum of accident could also be

proved from the First Information Report and it is also to be noted that, once a

part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing

the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the

other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. If the

contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part

thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not

been proved in accordance with law, would not arise. In the present case, the

7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

Tribunal failed to consider the documentary evidence, such as FIR and other

police records and arrived at a wrong conclusion that the accident had

occurred due to the contributory negligence in the ratio of 30:70 on the

deceased and the driver of the insured vehicle, when the entire negligence was

only on the deceased rider of the motorcycle. In fact, the deceased rode the

motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the backside of the

insured vehicle and then dashed on the right side wall of the bridge and fell

down from 30 feet height from the bridge who courted the accident on his own

negligence. The driver of the insured vehicle was not responsible for the

alleged accident. Moreover, the deceased failed to maintain a proper distance

while following the insured vehicle as mandated by the provisions of the Act,

1988, which is also mentioned in the FIR. It is clear from the contents of the

FIR that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the

deceased. Even assuming the insured vehicle stopped suddenly, as both the

vehicles were driven over the bridge, the deceased ought to have maintained

safe distance from the vehicle which was going ahead. The learned Tribunal

erred in relying upon the rest part of the FIR and erroneously fixed 70%

contributory negligence upon the appellant. To support his contentions, he has

relied upon the following judgements:

8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

1. Nishan Singh & Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

& others reported in 2018 ACJ 1466.

2. Surender Kumar Arora & another vs. Dr. Manoj Bisla & others

reported in 2012 (2) TN NAC 155 (SC)

3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Premlatha Shukla & others

reported in 2007 (2) TN MAC 106 (SC)

4. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. S. Padmini reported in

2014 2 TNMAC 521.

5. Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

Limited vs. K.Palani reported in 2019 ACJ 1386

He further submitted that the income considered by the Tribunal is highly

excessive without any documentary proof. Hence, prayed to allow the

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

11. Per contra, Mr.K. Balaji, the learned counsel for the Cross

Objectors in Cros.Obj No.3 of 2026 argued that the Award passed by the

Tribunal is contrary to law, not supported by the weight of evidence, and

against the probabilities of the case. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in

holding that the deceased has contributed to the accident to an extent of 30%

9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

despite the fact that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the 1

st

respondent’s car. The mere failure to

avoid the collusion by taking some extraordinary precaution does not in itself

constitute negligence. There was nothing on record to indicate that the

deceased was not riding the motorcycle at moderate speed nor that he did not

follow traffic rules. Hence, the Tribunal erred in fixing 30% contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased. He would further submit that, it is well

settled that in Motor Accident Claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely,

the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's

role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident

had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle

and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings

of the parties. While deciding cases arising out of Motor Vehicle Accident, the

standard of proof must be borne in mind must be of preponderance of

probabilities and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt

which is followed in Criminal Cases. The Tribunal ought not to have fixed

30% toward contributory negligence in the absence of evidence let in by the

Insurance Company that the accident occurred due to the contributory

negligence of the deceased. Therefore, Motor Accident case, being summary

10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

proceedings in nature, strict principles of law as per Evidence Act, may not be

invoked and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken judicial notice of facts

placed. He would submit that though the deceased was a Store Assistant in

Hotel Quality Inn Sabari, earning Rs.25,000/- per month, the Tribunal fixed

the income of the deceased only as Rs.15,000/- per month, which is very low.

He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to award compensation in

adequate measures as per the various decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well

as by this Hon’ble Court. To support his contentions he has relied upon the

following judgments:

1. Anita Sharma and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and

another reported in 2021 (1) TN MAC 321 (SC)

2. K. Anusha and others vs. Regional Manager, Shriram General

Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 (1) TN MAC 152 (SC).

3. Seema & others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited

and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1016.

4. Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06.12.2021 in Civil

Appeal Nos.7435-7436 of 2021 (Basanti Devi and another vs.

Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance company Limited

and others)

11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

12. Heard the submissions made by the counsel for the respective

parties and perused the materials on record.

13. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, relying on the evidence of

P.W.2 and a part of the content of the FIR, came to the conclusion that, the

insured vehicle contributed to the alleged accident to the extent of 70%. The

eye witness examined as P.W.2 has clearly deposed that, the driver of the

offending car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and applied

sudden brake, which resulted in the accident. At the same time, the learned

Tribunal held that, if the deceased, rider of the motorcycle, who followed the

car on the bridge had kept the safe distance from the vehicle in front, the

accident could have been avoided and fixed 30% contributory negligence on

the part of the deceased rider. Considering all these factors, this Court is of the

view that, if the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased had driven

the motorcycle with due care and caution, the accident could have been

averted. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company, the deceased ought to have maintained safe distance from the

insured vehicle, which was going ahead. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly

fixed 70% negligence on the part of the insured vehicle and 30% negligence

12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

on the deceased, warrants any interference by this Court.

14. According to the claimants, the deceased at the time of accident,

was a Store Assistant at Hotel Quality Inn Sabari and was earning a sum of

Rs.25,000/- per month. However, the claimants have not produced any proof

of income, except, Ex.P6 appointment letter. Hence, the Tribunal has fixed the

notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. Considering the

facts and circumstances of this case, age of the deceased and the plight of the

claimants, this Court deems it fit to fix the notional income of the deceased at

Rs.20,000/-. Since there are 2 dependants, 1/2 is deducted towards the

personal expenses of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased and

applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay Sethi

and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601, 40% future prospects is

applicable and multiplier 18 is adopted as per the judgment reported in 2009

(2) TN MAC 1 (SC), Sarala Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Others. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as

under:

Calculation

Notional Income = Rs.20,000/-

40% Future prospects = Rs.28,000/-

13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

Loss of dependency

= Rs.28,000/- x 12 x 18 - 1/2

= Rs.30,24,000/-

The Tribunal has awarded just compensation under the other heads, which

warrants any interference.

15. The following tabular column would show the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal and by this Court.

S.

No.

Description Amount

awarded by

Tribunal

(Rs.)

Amount

awarded by this

Court (Rs.)

Modification

1.Loss of

dependency

22,68,000/-30,24,000/-Enhanced

2.Loss of Estate15,000/- 15,000/-Confirmed

3.Loss of

consortium

80,000/-

(40000x2)

80,000/-Confirmed

4.Funeral

Expenses

15,000/- 15,000/-Confirmed

5.Transportation

charges

including

damages to

personal

belongings

10,000/- 10,000/-Confirmed

Total 23,88,000/-31,44,000/-

14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

After

deducting 30%

contributory

negligence

16,71,600/-22,00,800/-Enhanced by

Rs.5,29,200

16. In the result,

i. C.M.A. No.3624 of 2025 is dismissed. Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026 is partly

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

ii.The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to

Rs.22,00,800/- from Rs.16,71,600/-.

iii.The Cross Objectors in Cros.Obj. No.3 of 2026 are directed to pay court

fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if any, and the Registry is

directed to draft the decree only after receipt of Court fee.

iv.The

Appellant in C.M.A. No.3624 of 2025 / Insurance Company is

directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,00,800/-(less the amount already

deposited) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of

claim petition till the date of deposit, within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the credit of

M.C.O.P. No.4898 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

v.On such deposit being made, the appellants are at liberty to withdraw

their share as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, with costs

and interest, after filing a proper petition for withdrawal.

06.03.2026

bga

Internet:Yes/No

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

To

1. The Chief Judge,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The Section Officer,

VR Section,

High Court, Madras.

16/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

bga

Pre-delivery common judgment in

C.M.A.Nos.3624 of 2025 & Cross Obj. No.3 of 2026

and

C.M.P. No.30135 of 2025

06.03.2026

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