IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL CMA No. 94 of 2026 and CMP.No.986 of 2026

1. THE MANAGER, Reliance General Ins Co Ltd, 2nd Floor, Haritha Center, Door No 965, Avinashi Salai, Coimbatore 641 Appellant(s)

037.

Vs

1. Rajeshwari

2.Minor S.Ganga

3.Minor S.Yamuna

4.Sampath

5.Mayilsamy Nanjammal (Died)

6.Kannan (Driver) Respondent(s) PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the Decree and Judgement dated 7th December 2022, passed in M.C.O.P.No.624 of 2016, by the Honble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

For Appellant: Ms.C.Bhuvasundari For Respondent: Mr.L.Mouli for R1 to R3

JUDGMENT

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

Challenging the award made in MCOP.No.624 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore, the present appeal has been filed. The only challenge in this appeal filed by the Insurance Company is that double compensation is awarded with regard to the loss of consortium and loss of love and affection.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

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

3.a. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased Selvakumar. The second and third petitioners are two daughters of the deceased. The first respondent is sampath, owner of offending vehicle and the second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The third respondent and the fourth respondent (died) are the parents of the deceased. The fifth respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased Selvakumar was working in TANGEDCO aged about 36 years at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On 19.10.2013 at about 7.45 am, while the deceased was riding his two wheeler along with the pillion rider near the Chettipalayam, the offending vehicle driven by the fifth respondent owned by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed the two wheeler, as a result, the deceased was succumbed to injury on the spot. Hence, the petitioners and the respondents 3 and 4/parents of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal.

3.b. Though it was contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, the Tribunal disbelieved the contention based on the evidence adduced by PW2/Nallasamy and found that the death has caused due to the rash and negligence of the fifth respondent. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, first petitioner was examined as PW1 and PW1 examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. The co-worker Thiru Nallasamy was examined as PW2 and though his witness Exs.P8 and P9 were marked. The Junior Engineer was examined as PW3 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On the side of the third respondent/father of the deceased, third respondent himself was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 3.c. Based on the material and evidences, the Trial Court awarded the compensation as follows:-

4. Challenging the same, the insurer of the fourth respondent vehicle herein has preferred the instant civil miscellaneous appeal.

5. The main contention urged before this Court in the appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant is that towards the loss of consortium and the loss of love and affection, the Tribunal totally awarded Rs.4 lakhs, which according to the Insurance Company is a double compensation and since, the third respondent has already died, total compensation payable in both heads will come to Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.4,0