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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 841

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
THE MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
MURUGAYAL – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

CMA No. 1095 of 2022

The Manager

The National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Hero Corp Vertical, DOX, 803-A,

8th Floor, Konnectus, Tower-3,

Opp. New Delhi Railway Station,

Bhav Bhuti Marg, New Delhi 110 002.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Murugayal

2.Jothishankar

3.Pradeepa

4.Meiyappan 5.Ravikumar

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor

Vehicle Act to set aside the decree and Judgment passed in MCOP No.286 of 2018 on 13-12-2021 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gopichettipalayam, Erode - District and be Pleased to dismiss the above claim and allow the CMA.

For Petitioner Mr. J.Chandran For respondents Mr. M. Adhisree, for Mr. N. Manoharan, for R1 to R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the award dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gobichettipalayam, Erode, in MCOP No.286 of 2018.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company is arrayed as third respondent before the Tribunal. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants, who are wife and children of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of one Selvaraj, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 18.01.2028. The fifth respondent herein is the rider and the sixth respondent herein is the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Passion Pro-

Two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN36-AU-4685KA-43-6717.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 18.01.2018, at about 7.20 p.m., after pouring the milk at milk society, while the deceased proceeding towards West on his motorcycle bearing No.TN33 E 8001, the fourth respondent herein, riding his motorcycle bearing No.TN36 AU 4685, came from east to west in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, in which the deceased was travelling. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained serious head injuries and a fracture on his leg, despite treatment, succumbed to the injuries on 26.01.2018.

4. A criminal case in crime No.29 of 2018 was registered against the fourth respondent, rider of the motorcycle, for the offences under Sections 279, 337 IPC, which was later altered to Section 304(A) IPC. The deceased Selvaraj, was aged 53 years at the time of accident and was engaged in agriculture and milk vending, earning more than Rs. 4 lakhs per annum. On these grounds, the claim petition has been filed by the wife and children of the deceased against the rider & owner of the offending motorcycle and the appellant/Insurance Company.

5. The fourth respondent/rider and the fifth respondent/owner of the offending motorcycle remained exparte before the Tribunal. The appellant/

Insurance Company filed its counter statement, denying all the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the fourth respondent/rider of the offending motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence at the relevant point of time. The deceased himself came in a rash and negligent manner and thereby invited the accident. It was further contended that the deceased was not wearing a helmet. Therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The appellant/Insurance Company also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant examined herself as P.W.1, and one Mr.Senthil, Secretary of Suriyampalayam Cooperative Milk Producers Federation, was examined as P.W.2 and one Govindasamy, an eye-witness to the occurrence, was examined as P.W.3 and 24 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P24. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company one Mr.Jeyakrishnan, was examined as R.W.

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