BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/11/2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI CMA(MD)No.842 of 2021 and CMP(MD)No.7781 of 2021 The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. : Appellant/2^nd Respondent Vs.

1.S.Felcie Ponmathy

2.J.Donie Moses 3.J.Benny Moses

4.S.Joy : Respondents 1 to 4/Petitioners

5.T.Krishnakumari : 5^th Respondent/R1 Prayer:-This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in MCOP No.1259 of 2018, dated 08/01/2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District and Sessions Court, Communal Clash Cases Court, Madurai.

For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali For 1st Respondent : Mr.J.Sankarapandian For R2 to R4 : No appearance For 5th Respondent : No appearance

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon'ble P.VELMURUGAN. J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 08/01/2021 passed in MCOP No.1259 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District and Sessions Judge Communal Clash cases Court, Madurai.

2.The facts of the case are as follows:-

On 21/08/2018 at about 01.30 hours, the deceased John Moses Raj was travelling as a passenger in the Car bearing No.TN-69-BD-9119 belonged to the first respondent, who also drove the same from Neyvelli to Tuticorin in a rash and negligent manner from north to south in Madurai-Trichy Fourway Track, near Narasingampatty EB Office, the Car dashed against the centre portion of the divider and also dashed against the Lorry No.TN-63-Z-9679 which was coming in the opposite direction. In the accident, the deceased John Moses Raj died on the spot.

3.At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 56 years and was working as Deputy General Manager of NLC Tamilnadu Power Limited, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin and earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month. Claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, his legal heirs filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.

4.The Insurance Company opposed the said claim petition, denying the manner of the accident and their liability to pay the compensation.

5.To substantiate the case, on the side of the claimants, 4 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW4 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witness was examined and 4 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4. Through witnesses, Exs.X1 to X6 were marked.

6.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was happened only due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the Car belonging to the 1^st respondent and awarded Rs.1,37,87,000/- and directed the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company to pay the award amount, since on the date of the accident, the said Car was insured with the 2^nd respondent.

7.Challenging the said award as excessive, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards income tax and; the calculation memo filed on the side of the respondents is over and above the award amount. He would further submit that the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross objection and only the appellant has filed this appeal, in which the claimants cannot seek any enhancement, unless they challenged the quantum of award. He would also submit that the calculation memo submitted by the claimants making deduction towards income tax is not correct, which does not reflect in the actual income of the deceased and therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/claimant would submit that the Tribunal while appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, has rightly fixed the liability upon the Insurance Company and the appellant has not denied that at the time