IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11-08-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and C.M.P. N o s . 26039 and 2 6041 o f 2019 United India Insurance Company Limited, No.24, Whites Road, Chennai-600 014.

through United India Insurance Company Limited, No.134, Silingi Buildings, 4th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.

...Appellant(s)

Vs

1. S. Narayani 2.S. Nesamani

3.S. Durairaj

4.A. Kuppusamy, 5.W/o. Sornakumar

6.V. Raghupathi ...Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree dated 21.07.2015 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4638 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

For Appellant(s): Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Natarajan for R1 to R4 Mr.Eswar Kumar for R6 R5 - No Appearance

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/United India Insurance Company, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, wherein liability was fastened upon the appellant for the accident dated 12.09.2011 involving the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-

19-E-1136.

2.The case of the claimants is that the deceased Sankaran, a pedestrian, was walking from his village towards Vadanemmeli, near the Crocodile Bank, to purchase provisions. At that time, a Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.TN-19-E- 1136, proceeding from Chennai to Pondicherry, hit him and fled the scene. The deceased died on the spot. The petitioners who are the wife, children and the father of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Sankaran.

3.The Tribunal after analysing the oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.9,25,000/- towards compensation which is payable by the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the fastening of liability, the insurer has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider that Ex.P6 - Registration Certificate of the alleged accident vehicle TN-19-E-1136, corresponds to Engine No. 473DL56CYY706356 and Chassis No. MAT4460J4B9CJO584, registered before the RTO, Chengalpet. It is submitted that Ex.P-8, bearing Policy No. 0209003111-0110051005, covers the period from 20.12.2011 to 19.12.2012 and corresponds to a different vehicle, namely, Engine No. 483DL56PYY720889 and Chassis No. MAT44601489P37751. Thus Ex.P-6 - Registration Certificate and Ex.P.8 -Insurance Policy, relate to two entirely different vehicles. Therefore, the accident vehicle No.TN-19-E-1136 was not insured with the appellant on the date of the accident. The appellant further submits that the owner of TN-19-E-1136 produced the above unrelated policy (Ex.P-8) for brake testing on 30.07.2012 (Ex.P-9) after the accident. He would submit that only upon recent internal investigation, the appellant discovered that Ex.P-8 actually belongs to the vehicle TN-19-E-7571, also belonging to the 5th respondent, but not involved in the accident. Hence, the liability cannot be fastened upon the insurer.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the income of the deceased while arriving at the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- without taking note of the cost of living at that time. He would submit that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under various heads.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the papers.

7.On a perusal of Ex.P.6 - Registration Certificate, it is seen that the Registration Number of the offending vehicle is TN-19-E-1136 and it is Engine No. 473DL56CYY706356 and Chassis No. MAT4460J4B9CJO584, registered before the RTO, Chengalpet. Further, it is seen that Ex.P-8, bearing Policy No. 0209003111-0110051005, covers the period from 20.12.2011 to 19.12.2012 and corresponds to a different vehicle, namely, Engine No. 483DL56PYY720889