IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

CMA No. 2589 of 2024

and

CMP No.20569 of 2024

M/s. United India Insurance Co Ltd.,

Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

Divisional Office at Durga Bhavani Square,

Opp. Railway Station,

Denkanikottai road, Hosur,

Krishnagiri 635 109.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Chandrakala

2.Nithish Kumar (Minor)

S/o. Late. Murugan,

rep by Mother and NF

Chandrakala 1 st Respondent

3.Anu Sri (Minor)

D/o. Late. Murugan,

rep by Mother and NF

Chandrakala 1 st Respondent)

4.Kanniamma

5.Vaiyapuri

6.Thimmaraj Respondent(s)

PRAYER This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act against the Judgement and Decree made in MCOP No.1309 of 2021 dated 19.01.2024 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri.

For Appellant(s): Mr. M.B.Raghavan for Mr. M.B. Gopalan Associates For Respondent(s): Mr. E.Kannadasan, for R1 to R5 R6 – N.A.

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 19.01.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Krishnagiri, in MCOP No.1309 of 2021.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company is arrayed as second respondent before the Tribunal. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants, who filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death of one Murugan, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 18.10.2021. The sixth respondent herein is the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Bolero Pickup bearing Registration No.KA-43-6717.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 18.10.2021, the deceased Murugan and Muniappa were travelling to their village in the offending vehicle along with urea and pesticides purchased by them. The said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. At that time, a dog suddenly crossed the road and in an attempt to avoid hitting the dog, the driver applied sudden brake. Due to over-speed, the driver lost control of the vehicle, which resulted in the vehicle capsizing. In the said accident, the deceased Murugan and Muniappa sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, succumbed to the same. The deceased Murugan was aged 31 years at the time of accident and was engaged in agriculture and allied business, earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. On the said grounds, the claim petition has been filed against the owner of the vehicle and the appellant/Insurance Company.

4. The sixth respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal. The appellant/ Insurance Company filed its counter statement denying all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the deceased travelled as an unauthorised passenger in a goods vehicle, in violation of policy conditions, and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Further, the sixth respondent/owner of the vehicle knowingly took many persons unauthorizedly for monetory benefits. The appellant/Insurance Company has also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant examined herself as P.W.1, and one Mr.Sathappa, an eye-witness to the occurrence, was examined as P.W.2 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company one Mr.K.S.Ramachandran was examined as R.W.1 and the Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R1.

6. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal further held that the deceased was travelling along with the goods purchased by them and that he cannot be treated as unauthorised passenger. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,06,624/- as compensation a