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) 5639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
The United India Insurance Co Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Vithya – Respondent



##PAGE1##

2026:MHC:437

C.M.A.No.173 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

C.M.A.No.173 of 2026

&

C.M.P.No.2005 of 2026

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Represented by its Divisional Manager

Having Divisional Office at

TKM Complex, at Door No.46-51

3rd Floor, Katpadi Road

Vellore – 632 004 ... Appellant/2nd respondent

Versus

1. Tmt.Vithya

2. M/s.SVT Infra

No.1/150, Arcot Main Road

Puttuthaku, Walaja

Ranipet District – 632 513 ... Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles

Act,1988 against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2021

dated 19.02.2025 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 08:06:30 pm )

##PAGE2##

C.M.A.No.173 of 2026

Subordinate Court, Vellore.

For Appellant : Ms.Harini

M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore dated 19.02.2025 in M.C.O.P.No.65 of

2021, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

2. The parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the

Tribunal.

3. The following facts are necessary for disposal of this appeal:

On 10.05.2020 at about 04.30pm, the deceased, who was aged about

18 years, travelled in a lorry bearing Registration No.TN AB 3224 with his

rice to deliver it to some other place. At that time, the driver of the lorry

drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the lorry

capsized and fell into the well and the deceased drowned in water. Hence,

the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition, but subsequently second

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 08:06:30 pm )

##PAGE3##

C.M.A.No.173 of 2026

petitioner, who is the father of the deceased, died and the mother alone

prosecuted the claim before the Tribunal.

4. The second respondent Insurance Company resisted the claim by

filing counter affidavit. It was denied by the Insurance Company that the

deceased was an agriculturist. It is the contention of the Insurance Company

that the deceased was aged about only 17 years and was a student but he

discontinued his studies even before the accident and was not earning any

income. It is the further contention of the Insurance Company that at the

time of accident, the vehicle was empty and therefore, the contention of the

claimants that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as owner of goods is

absolutely false and not based on any records. Further, the contention that

the deceased travelled in the vehicle as a coolie cum owner of goods are

contradictory statement. In the tipper lorry only three persons can travel, but

four persons including the first respondent were in the vehicle at the time of

accident and therefore, there is violation of policy conditions.

5. Based on the above pleadings following points were framed by the

Tribunal for consideration:

1) Who is responsible for the accident?

2) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to

the petitioners? If so, which respondent is liable?

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 08:06:30 pm )

##PAGE4##

C.M.A.No.173 of 2026

3) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so

what is the quantum of compensation amount?

6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, PW1 and PW2

were examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked and on the side of the

respondents, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were

marked. One another document was marked as Ex.X1.

7. The Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,

found that the negligence is on the part of the lorry driver and awarded the

compensation of Rs.23,50,000/- and the details of which are as follows:

1. Loss of Income - Rs.22,68,000.00

2. Towards parental consortium - Rs. 44,000.00

3. Transport Expenses - Rs. 5,000.00

4. Loss of Estates

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