CMA/2972/2023 of The Manager Vs B.Saritha on 14 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Court-FTC), Kanchipuram in M.C.O.P.No.1035 of 2015, dated 01.06.2023 on the ground of negligence.

2. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants are the wife, daughter, son and mother of the deceased S.Boobalan. On 04.12.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., the deceased was driving a car bearing Regn.No.TSA 0548 along with his wife and proceeding from his native village towards Kancheepuram according to traffic rules. Whileso, near South side of the Perunagar Cheeyar River Bridge on the Vandhavasi to Kancheepuram Highways road, the 1st respondent motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-25-T-9082 belong to the 2nd respondent, which was driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car and smashed the car front glasses and hit against the deceased head portion. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries over the head and he was immediately admitted in the ABCD Private hospital at Kancheepuram. During the course of treatment he died in the hospital on the same day. Thereafter, the claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, which was restricted to Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have examined 2 witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 13 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. On the side of the respondents, they have examined 4 witnesses viz., R.W.1 to R.W.4 and marked 8 documents viz., Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8. After adjudication, the Tribunal had allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.44,01,160/- as compensation under various heads by fastening the negligence exclusively on the driver of the appellant insured motorcycle and by ordering pay and recovery. Challenging the said order, the appellant-insurance company is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the FIR initially was registered against the rider of the motorcycle, but was subsequently closed upon a finding that negligence rested solely on the deceased driver of the car. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of R.W.2 and the relevant documents, namely the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, the rough sketch and the final report. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 establishes that the car swerved to the extreme right of the road, breaching the median of the road, which clearly demonstrates sole negligence on the part of the driver of the car. According to the postmortem report, the only external injuries observed were nasal bleeding and a laceration on the left forehead. Furthermore, when the claimants failed to prove the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, the insurance company cannot be saddled with any liability. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 /claimants 1 to 3 would submit that by considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fixed the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, which does not require any interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

7. The appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. However, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the liability fastened against them. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, who is an eye- witness, traveled along with the deceased at the time of the accident, along with the documents Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4, the FIR, the copy of postmortem certificate and the copy of death certificate, clearly establishes that the accident had happened due to the negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle. Further, a perusal of MV report of the car as well as the motorcycle would reveal that the motorcycle fell on the front side of the car and dashed against the face of the deceased, causing him to sustain fatal injuries to which he succumbed. In order to disprove the same, the appellant did not examine any independent eyewitness before the Tribunal. Therefore, by elaborately considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has passed the impugned award fixing the liability on the driver of the motorcycle, which cannot be found fault with. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the impugned Award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court-FTC), Kanchipuram in M.C.O.P.No.1035 of 2015 dated 01.06.2023 is confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount as awarded by the Tribunal to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1035 of 2015 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The share of the 4th respondent/4th claimant shall be equally apportioned among the respondents 1 to 3/claimants 1 to 3, since the 4th respondent had passed away, pending appeal. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the share of the 1st respondent/1st claimant directly to her bank account through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. Further, the Tribunal is also directed to deposit the respective share of the respondents 2 and 3/claimants 2 and 3 in an interest yielding fixed deposit with any one of the Nationalised Banks, initially for a period of one year to be renewed at periodic intervals until they attain majority and interest derived from out of the said deposits shall be paid to the 1st respondent, who is the mother of the respondents 2 and 3, every quarter, to be utilised for the welfare of the said minor claimants. After attaining majority, it is open to the respondents 2 and 3/claimants 2 and 3 to file necessary application to establish their majority, at which point of time, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the amount in the fixed deposits directly to the bank account of the respondents 2 and 3/claimants 2 and 3 through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court-FTC), Kanchipuram.

M.DHANDAPANI J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. sp C.M.A.No.2972 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.27995 of 2023 14.10.2026