Madras High Court
CMA/1266/2020 of M/S.RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs K.PERUMAL(DIED) on 25 September 2026
CMA No. 1266 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
CMA No. 1266 of 2020
CNR:{HCMA011719982019}
AND
CMP Nos. 8546 of 2020
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd
“Heavitree"" Unit No.1, III Floor,
No.23, Spur Tank Road,
Chetpet,
Chennai-600 031
..Appellant(s)
Vs
K.Perumal (Died)
1. P.Navajothi
2. Nithiyakalyani
3. P.Manikandan
4. P.Ramachandran
5. K.Pattammal
6. P.Arumugam
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28-03-2019 made in
( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )
CMA No. 1266 of 2020
MCOP No.4772 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant(s):
Mr. S.Arunkumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr. N.M.Muthurajan
For R1 to R5
R6 – Died.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The 2nd respondent / insurance company has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal, challenging the award dated 28.03.2019, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in MCOP.No.4772 of 2010. The facts are briefly set out herein below.
2. The claim petition was originally filed by one K.Perumal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.65,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. Pending the petition, the said Perumal had died on 06.08.2011 and his legal representatives, namely, his wife, children and mother were brought on record.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 23.09.2010, at about 21.00 hrs, while the deceased Perumal was walking on the left side of the GST Road
( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )
CMA No. 1266 of 2020
toward his residence, a lorry bearing registration No. TN 34 C 3444 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the said Perumal, causing grievous injuries to him. The said Perumal was immediately admitted to Parvathy Hospital for treatment. However, he had passed away on 06.08.2011.
4. The petitioners would submit that the said Perumal was employed as a Supervisor at the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Thiruvanmiyur, earning a monthly income of Rs.17,000/-. He has left behind his wife (the 2nd petitioner), his children (petitioners 3 to 5) and his mother (the 6th petitioner), all of whom were dependent on him. They would submit that the 1st respondent as the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent as its insurer were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
5. The 1st respondent / owner of the lorry remained ex parte.
6. The 2nd respondent / insurance company filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition and contending that there was no nexus between the death of the said Perumal and the injuries. They denied the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased and the nature of the death. They had also put the petitioners to strict proof about their relationship to the deceased.
( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )
CMA No. 1266 of 2020
7. The Tribunal had framed the following points for consideration:
(i) Whether the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle that belongs to the 1st respondent?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents?
(iii) What is the quantum of compensation that the petitioners are entitled to under various heads claimed by them?
(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest and if so at what rate of interest and from which date?
(v) To what other relief the petitioners are entitled to?
8. To prove their case, the petitioners have examined the 2nd petitioner as PW1, eye witness one Selvam as PW2 and one Dr.Saravanabavanantham, as PW3. The petitioners had marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 on their side. The 2nd respondent had neither let in oral evidence nor documentary evidence.
9. The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record and taking note of the evidence of PW2, eye witness that the accident had occurred when the deceased attempted to cross the road had held that the deceased had also contributed to the accident. Therefore, fixed the negligence as 75% on the driver of the lorry and 25% on the deceased. The Tribunal had taken note of
( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )
CMA No. 1266 of 2020
Ex.P.21, salary slip which shows that at the time of the accident, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,650/- per month. That income has been adopted and ultimately the Tribunal had awarded total compensation of a sum of Rs.48,27,000/- and taking note of the apportionment they held that the petitioners were entitled to Rs.36,20,000/-.
10. Challenging the same, the 2nd respondent / insurance company is before this Court.
11. Though the grounds with reference to nexus of the death to the accident was primarily raised, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the deceased Perumal should have rejoined duty and that the petitioners have not produced his service records. Therefore, this Court by order dated 12.08.2026 directed the petitioners’ counsel to produce service records of the deceased Perumal and the same was produced vide affidavit dated 16.09.2026, including records of the medical examination by the Regional Medical Board. These documents on consent have been marked as Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.26.
12. A perusal of the medical report, Ex.P.25 shows that the said Perumal has not recovered after the accident. It clearly shows that there has been a traumatic brain injury, as a result of which he was able to tell one or two words
( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )
CMA No. 1266 of 2020
and is able to obey simple commands and that he is ambulant only with support. The report is dated 13.06.2011 and he passed away on 06.08.2011, without recovering. Therefore, it is clear that the death of the said Perumal has a direct nexus to his injuries. The Tribunal below has on evidence held negligence on both the deceased as well as the 1st respondent driver and apportioned the negligence. As regards quantum, it has been fixed by taking into account the last drawn salary of the deceased.
13. In the light of the documents that have now been produced, namely, service register, Ex.P.26 as also the medical board’s report, Ex.P.25 we see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
14. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAN
( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )
CMA No. 1266 of 2020
To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )
CMA No. 1266 of 2020
P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. KAN CMA No. 1266 of 2020 25-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )