Madras High Court
CMA/1652/2024 of M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs SRIHARI on 27 October 2026
CMA No.1652 of 2024
__________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CMA No. 1652 of 2024
AND
CMP NO. 13410 OF 2024
M/s. National Insurance Co.Ltd
Second Floor, Maruthi Complex, F-125, Omalur Main Road, P.B.No. 27, Salem-4.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Srihari
S/o. Madhavan, residing at 239-P-Black, Anna Nagar, Kottai, Salem-1.
2. Riyash
S/o. Sirajudeen, Res. at No. 163, Ward 5, Santhaipettai, Kadaivaamoatty SP, Salem-636
455.
..Respondent(s)
CMA No. 1652 of 2024
To set aside the award passed in MCOP No.100 of 2017 dated 03.11.2023 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court MACT, Salem and be pleased to dismiss the above Claim.
CMA No. 1652 of 2024
For Appellant(s):
Mr.J.Chandran
For Respondent(s):
M/s. R.Navaneetha Krishnan
For R1
R2 - Notice Dispense With Vide C/o Dt:
15.07.2024
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:29 pm )
CMA No.1652 of 2024
__________
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Salem in MCOP No. 100 of 2017 dated 03.11.2023.
2. The first respondent is the claimant. The case of the first respondent is that on 12.08.2016, at about 6.15 p.m., the first respondent was a pedestrian on the road, at that point of time, the second respondent who is driver cum owner of the car, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the first respondent, as a result of which, the first respondent sustained grievous injuries and was admitted as an in-patient at Universal Hospital, Salem. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 768 of 2016. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the tribunal.
3. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:29 pm )
CMA No.1652 of 2024 __________
4. Having rendered the above finding, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation amount in the following manner: Sl.No. Compensation awarded under the head Amount (in Rs.)
1. Pain and suffering Rs.1,75,000/-
2. Loss of convenience Rs. 1,25,000/-
3. Medical Expenses as per Ex.P9 Rs.101489/-
4. Future Medical expenses Nil
5. Attendant charges Rs.25,000/-
6. Disability as per Ex.C1 (6000x 10%) Rs.60,000/-
7. Temporary loss of income Nil
8. Transport to Hospital Rs.25,000/-
9. Extra Noruishment Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.5,36,489/-
5. The above compensation amount of Rs. 5,36,489/- was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. However, considering the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license, pay and recover was ordered.
6. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal mainly on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license and therefore, pay and recover ought not to have been ordered.
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:29 pm )
CMA No.1652 of 2024 __________
7. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the award passed by the Tribunal.
8. The ground that was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is to the effect that the Tribunal ought not to have ordered for pay and recover. It is seen that the accident had happened after the amendment and the policy issued is before the amendment. The said ground is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd V. Swaran Singh and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal applying the principle of pay and recover.
9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court finds that the Tribunal has granted a just and reasonable compensation and it does not require the interference of this Court.
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation along with accrued interest, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the compensation amount in the proportion as fixed by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently connected
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:29 pm )
CMA No.1652 of 2024 __________
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 01-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:29 pm )
CMA No.1652 of 2024 __________
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CMA No. 1652 of 2024 AND CMP NO. 13410 OF 2024 01-07-2026
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:29 pm )
CMA No.1652 of 2024 __________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1652 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.13410 of 2024 CNR: {HCMA010276732024} National Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor, Maruthi Complex, F-125, Omalur Main Road, P.B.No.27, Salem-4. ..Appellant Vs
3. Srihari S/o.Madhavan
4. Riyash S/o.Sirajudeen ..Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed in MCOP No.100 of 2017 dated 03.11.2023 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, MACT, Salem. For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran For Respondents : Mr.R.Navaneetha Krishnan [R1] Notice dispensed with [R2] *****
ORDER
Today, the matter is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of learned counsel for appellant.
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:29 pm )
CMA No.1652 of 2024 __________
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. Considering the submissions made, this Court directs the Registry to carry out the following amendment in the order dated 01.07.2026 and issue fresh order copy:
(a) In paragraph No.8 of the order, the sentence "It is seen that the accident had happened after the amendment and the policy issued is before the amendment." shall be replaced with "It is seen that the accident had happened before the amendment and the policy issued is before the amendment."
(b) Paragraph No.10 shall be read as “The other ground raised is that a fake claim has been made since the owner and the driver are the same person, whereas a different impression was created at the time of giving the complaint. The Court below has dealt with this issue and the finding rendered by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this Court.”
(c) Paragraph No.10 shall be renumbered as Paragraph No.11. 27-10-2026 gm To The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, MACT, Salem. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1652 of 2024
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:29 pm )