Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, JJ.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Nantha Kumar – Respondent
C.M.A.No.2019 of 2024 & Cros.Obj.No.89 of 2024
Decided On : 12-12-2025
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For the Respondents: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel, for M/s.C.Uma
In motor accident claims, compute seafarer income by averaging contract salary and loyalty pay, apply 40% future prospects for non-permanent employees.
Headnote:First Paragraph: Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appeal and cross-objection challenge tribunal award in motor accident claim. Deceased, employed as Second Officer on ship earning USD 3900 monthly under contract, died in collision with lorry on highway due to driver's negligence. Tribunal awarded Rs.1,78,32,813/-; court finds insurer liable, modifies quantum based on employment documents showing tenure-based pay and loyalty allowance. Second Paragraph: Issues framed on negligence liability and compensation quantum, including contributory negligence plea rejected for lack of evidence. Ratio: Income computed averaging on-duty salary (USD 3900 for 7 months) and loyalty pay (USD 1750 for 5 months), applying 40% future prospects for contractual employee per Pranay Sethi principles; loyalty pay substitutes, not adds to regular pay. Last Paragraph: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; Cross Objection partly allowed; total compensation enhanced to Rs.3,01,82,002/- with 7.5% interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of accident, claims, evidence, and tribunal award. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. insurer contests negligence and victim contributory fault. (Para 6) |
| 3. arguments on quantum, salary, loyalty pay inclusion. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court analysis: average income, 40% prospects for contractual. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. modified compensation and apportionment ordered. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
C.M.A.No.2019 of 2024 is filed by the Insurance Company and Cros.Obj.No.89 of 2024 is filed dependants of the accident victim, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Namakkal, in M.C.O.P.No.873 of 2018.
2. The facts of the case are as below:-
Praveen Kumar, aged 30, was employed under Eastern Pacific Shipping (India) Pvt., Limited, under contract as Second Commandant Officer in the ship. On 26.06.2000, while he was driving car bearing Reg.No.TN-28-AP-3384 on the Namakkal-Trichy Road, at 2.15 a.m., near Golden Palace Hotel from North- South and Ashok Leyland lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-23-AH-7389 proceeding from South to North driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed the car across extensively damage to the car and grievous injuries to Praveen Kumar, who was on the wheel. Praveen Kumar was taken to the Namakkal Government Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. As second Commandant Officer in the ship, the said Praveen Kumar was earning Rs.2,75,000/- per month and Rs.30,000/- other allowance. He died as Bachelor, leaving behind his parents, Nanthakumar (aged 63) Malathi (aged 57) and brother Kiruthikkumar (aged 34), who were his dependants. At the time of his death, the deceased/Praveen Kumar holding degree in Bachelor of Nautical Science and drawing salary of Rs.2,75,000/- while on shore and Rs.1,30,000/- as loyalty pay while at half- shore. He has prospect of Promoted as First Commandant Officer having completed 10 years of his service. He returned to India in the month of July 2016 to take up his examination for the post of Chief Officer. At that time, untimely accident had shattered the dreams of the deceased and his dependants. Therefore, the 4th respondent, who was the owner of the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-23-AH-7389 and the insurer, namely the 1st respondent/ Oriental Insurance Company, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,00,000/- along with interest.
3. The claim petition is opposed by the Insurance Company both on liability as well as quantum. As per counter of the Insurance Company, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the victim by not following the road rules. Soon before the accident, the right side tyre of the car got busted and the victim lost the control of the steering and dashed against the lorry. It is contended that the accident was purely due to the rash and negligence of the victim which caused the accident. The claimants have not produced enough document to substantiate their claim based on the alleged income of the deceased Praveen Kumar. No income tax returns filed, nor evidence to prove that he was earning Rs.2,75,000/- per month while on board and Rs.1,30,000/- while on half-board.
4. Based on the pleadings, six witnesses on behalf of the claimants were examined and 56 documents were marked to substantiate the claim. On behalf of the respondent, one witness was examined. The statement of accounts in the name of Praveen Kumar, maintained in S.B.I, Nungambakkam Branch, for the period 01.01.2010 to 25.07.2021, marked as witness Ex.P.3.
5. The Tribunal, on considering the material evidence in the form of documents marked as exhibits and the oral evidence of the witnesses, awarded a sum of Rs.1,78,32,813/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The award was ordered to be shared among the claimants as below:-
6. Claiming that the award is exorbitant and contrary to the weightage of evidence and probabiliti
