IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date of Reserving the Judgment Date of Pronouncing the Judgment

17.12.2025 22.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU CMA No. 1364 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.9895 of 2022 The Divisional Manager, M/s.IFFCO-TOKIO Insurance Company Ltd., No.43/3, First Floor, 100 feet Road, Mudaliarpet, Puducheri. Appellant/III Respondent.

Vs

1.Balasubramanian

2.Selvi (died)

3.Ramesh Krishna

4.Satish Respondents Prayer:

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Final Award dated 25^th January, 2022, passed in M.C.O.P.No.839 of 2013, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (In the III Additional District Court), at Puducheri.

For Appellant(s): Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Senthil Kumar for R1

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by K.KUMARESH BABU., J.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant–

Insurance Company challenging the award dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby a total compensation of Rs.20,10,000/- was awarded in favour of the dependents of the deceased. 2) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the deceased, aged about 27 years, had completed B.Sc. (Catering Technology) and MBA (Human Resource Management). He was employed as a Manager in the Catering Section at Sooriya Beach Resort, ECR Main Road, Villupuram, and was earning a monthly income of Rs.16,000/-. On 19.05.2013, while the deceased was riding his friend’s Hero Honda Passion Plus motorcycle bearing Registration No. PY-01-AV-4583 near Sangamam Quarters, he dashed against the vehicle of the third respondent, which had come to a sudden halt allegedly due to animal intervention on the road.

3) The claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.41,00,000/-, contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent and that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant–Insurance Company, thereby making the appellant and the third respondent jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.20,10,000/- under various heads, including loss of income, medical expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, and funeral expenses, after deducting 15% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

4) Heard Mr. J. Micheal Visuvasam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company, and Mr. D. Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

5) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the manner in which the accident occurred while determining the issue of negligence. It is contended that Ex.P1, the FIR, clearly indicates that the deceased, who was riding his motorcycle, rammed into the rear of the vehicle of the third respondent, which was proceeding ahead of him, resulting in the accident.

6) The learned counsel further submits that the third respondent had stopped the vehicle due to sudden animal intervention on the road and that, in such circumstances, it was not possible to give any prior signal. It is contended that the deceased failed to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead and was riding at an uncontrollable speed, which led to the accident.

7) It is further submitted that Ex.P5, the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, reveals that the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the third respondent despite documentary evidence pointing towards negligence on the part of the deceased.

8) The learned counsel also contends that the deceased was a bachel