SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5055

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J.NISHA BANU, R.SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Appellant 
Vs.
Emayavalli, W/o Late Kannan - Respondent 
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2024 and Cross Objection No.77 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18639 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.G.Vasudevan
For the Respondent: Mr.Terry Chella Raja

The court confirmed a compensation award for negligence in a fatal accident, establishing the notional income and future prospects of the deceased based on credible evidence.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Claim for compensation arising out of a road accident - Appeal by insurer against the award of the Tribunal - Finding of negligence - Notional income fixed and enhanced compensation - The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Innova car; compensation awarded was Rs.23,83,750/- based on evidence. (Paras 7, 12, 13)

(B) Compensatory principles - The deceased's notional income was set at Rs.15,000/- with a 25% increase for future prospects, grounded on established precedent - Reasonableness of compensation determined across heads with no need for further interference. (Paras 10, 13)

(C) The court affirmed the Tribunal's findings, stating that the evidence presented was not undermined by the insurer and indicated no fault of the deceased. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Death of Kannan in a road accident involving an Innova car; claimants sought Rs.45,00,000/- as compensation for negligence attributed to the Innova driver.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the insurer and owner of the Innova car were jointly liable for compensation.

Issues: The assessment of negligence, the evidence of the accident, and the appropriate level of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's ruling, confirming negligence was sufficiently established through witness and documentary evidence, particularly the FIR.

Result: Appeal dismissed; the Tribunal's award was upheld.

Table of Content
1. fatal road accident details and claimants' compensation request (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. insurance company's denial and counterarguments (Para 5 , 9 , 10)
3. tribunal's findings on negligence and income evaluation (Para 6 , 12 , 13)
4. court's reasoning on the adequacy of the compensation (Para 7 , 11)
5. order to dismiss the appeal and uphold compensation (Para 8 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

(The judgment of the Court was delivered by J.Nisha Banu,J.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 22.06.2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No.6 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The Cross Objection has been filed by the claimants challenging the said award dated 22.06.2022 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake convenience, the appellant in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is referred to as appellant and the respondents in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is referred to as respondents in both CMA and Cross Objections.

3. The appellant is the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company in M.C.O.P.No.6 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The 1st respondent is the wife, the 2nd respondent is the daughter, the 3rd respondent is the son, the 4th respondent is the mother and the 5th respondent is the father of the deceased Kannan, who died in a road accident that took place on 01.12.2019.

4. According to the claimants on 01.12.2019 at about 8.00 a.m., while the deceased was driving his own car bearing Registration No.TN- 19-P-4006 at OMR Road, Karunkuzhipallam near Vakkoil Thottam, Kancheepuram District, a Innova Car bearing Registration No.PY-01- CB-2425 which came from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner crossed the center median and dashed against the car of Mr.Kannan/deceased and due to the impact, the rider of the car bearing Registration No.TN-19-P-4006 sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the 1st respondent/owner of the Innova car and the 2nd respondent/insurer of the Innova car, both are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. They have claimed a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- as compensation.

5. The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and the age, occupation, date and time of accident, dependency of the deceased and income of the deceased are all denied by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has also denied the manner of accident. Whether the driver of the Innova car was at fault or whether the deceased was at fault is not known and as such, the deceased would be guilty of contributory negligence. It is further stated in the counter statement that the claim petition contains plain and wild allegations and the same is devoid of merits. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant examined herself as PW1. Mr.Radhakrishnan, an eye witness to the accident was examined as PW.2 and one M.Shanmugavel was examined as PW3. Exs.P1 to P20 were marked on the side of the claimants. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the Insurance Company. The 1st respondent therein, owner of Innova car, remained absent and was set exparte before the Tribunal.

7. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova car and directed the 1st respondent/owner of the innova car and the 2nd respondent/ /insurer of the said vehicle, to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.23,83,750/- as compensation to the claimants.

8. Against the said award dated 22.06.2022 made in M.C.O.P.No.6 of 2020, granting compensation to the respondents/claimants, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top