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) 3777

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Priya – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CMA No. 185 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

CMA No. 185 of 2026 and CMP.No.2195 of 2026

1. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd

No. 6 Haddows Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai 6. Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Priya

2.Ramayai

3.P.Vijayakumar Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against

the Judgment and Decree dated 08.01.2024 made in MCOP No. 3869 of 2021

on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge Court of Small

Causes, Chennai.

For Appellant(s): Ms.R.Sree Vidhya

For Respondent(s): Mr.Amar D Pandiya for R1 and R2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

Challenging the award made in MCOP.No.3869 of 2021 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chief Judge Court of Small Causes, Chennai,

the present appeal has been filed. The appellant herein is the insurer of the

offending vehicle and the third respondent is the owner of vehicle. The

respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 06:23:19 pm )

##PAGE2##

CMA No. 185 of 2026

2. Brief facts in filing the appeal is as follows:-

2.a. The deceased was riding his Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing

Registration No.TN52-D-3348 from Chennai Harbour to Bangalore National

Highways, near Dhargamedu, Sunguvarchathiram, a tipper lorry bearing

Registration No.TN25-AK-4822 proceeding in the same direction suddenly

took a 'U' turn without giving any signal and applying signal lights, which

resulted in the victim's Ashok leyland lorry hitting the rear side of the tipper

lorry, due to the impact the victim sustained fatal injuries and died on spot. The

claimants being the wife and mother of the deceased have filed the petition

claiming compensation. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as

driver in NKR Transport, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, who was

earning Rs.20,000/- at the time of death and hence, the claimants being the wife

and children of the deceased have filed the petition claiming compensation.

2.b. It is the contention of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal

that accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased himself

who was riding the vehicle without following traffic rules at the time of

accident. There is involvement of two vehicles, the claimants ought to have

impleaded the owner and insurer of the Ashok Leyland Lorry for proper

adjudication of the claim, therefore, the above claim petition is bad for non-

joinder of necessary parties. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants,

PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P21 were marked. On the side of

the respondents, none was examined and no documents were marked. Though

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 06:23:19 pm )

##PAGE3##

CMA No. 185 of 2026

Insurance Company has filed an application under Section 170 of Motor

Vehicles Act, no evidence was produced.

2.c. Based on the material and evidences, the Trial Court considering the

evidences of PW1 and PW2, eye witness has come to the conclusion that the

accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the first

respondent's lorry and awarded the compensation as follows:-

Sl.No. Heads Calculation

1 Total loss of dependency Rs.28,56,000/-

2 Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/-

3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-

4 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-

5 Transport charges Rs.10,000/-

Total compensation is fixed at Rs.29,76,000/-

2.d. The Trial Court while fixing the compensation took the notional

income as Rs.15,000/- and adding 40% future prospects, fixed the income as

Rs.21,000/- and applied the multiplier as per the age of the deceased and

considering other aspects, awarded the compensation.

3. Challenging the same, the insurer of the third respondent vehicle has

preferred the instant civil miscellaneous appeal.

4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 06:23:19 pm

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