2026:MHC:177 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 C.M.A.No.3904 of 2025 &

C.M.P.No.32969 of 2025 Tata AIG General Insurance Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Samson Towers Pantheon Road Chennai – 600 008 ... Appellant Versus

1. Anandhan

2. Kavitha

3. B.Dinesh Kumar ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the award dated 25.07.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.221 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srinivasan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried and he was working as a Supervisor and Accountant at Allasai Aggregattes, Chennai and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. It is the case of the claimants that when the deceased was waiting at Pudupakkam Koot Road junction in his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 05 AT 3100, another Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN14 Y 1446, which was coming in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased’s motorcycle and as a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the same day. Hence, the claimants, who are the father and mother of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

3. On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined as PWs

1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked and on the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced on both sides, came to the conclusion that only the offending vehicle rider came in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.25,50,200/- as compensation. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

5. The Insurance Company has challenged the quantum of compensation mainly on the ground that the deceased suddenly took “U” turn which resulted in the accident and that apart he did not wear helmet. Therefore, according to learned counsel, fixing the liability on the appellant Insurance Company is not proper. It is further contented that the Insurance Company of the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling has not been added as a party.

6. We have perused the entire materials available on record.

7. The main contention placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and further, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid Driving Licence. Learned counsel relied upon the evidence of RW1, notice sent to the rider of the offending vehicle along with postal receipt and also the copy of the notice sent to the Regional Transport Office to find out whether the driver of the offending vehicle had any valid Driving Licence. Much reliance has been placed on the fact that Driving Licence has not been produced before the Motor Vehicle Inspector and it is further contended that the postmortem certificate of the deceased disclose ethyl alcohol in the vicera. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, contributory negligence ought to have been fixed on the deceased.

8. When the Insurance Company has taken a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid Driving Licence, the said factum has to be established in the manner known to law. Merely sending a notice to the driver of the offending vehicle, which was unserved and also sending a notice to the Regional Transport Officer, will not discharge the burden. The Insurance Company ought to hav