Madras High Court

CMA/1652/2024 of M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs SRIHARI on 27 October 2026

Cites 1, Cited by 0

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

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

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 )

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead