Madras High Court
CMA/3052/2018 of THE ORIENTAL INS CO LTD Vs S.KALAISELVI@SELVI on 24 September 2026
CMA No. 3052 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
CMA No. 3052 of 2018
CNR:{HCMA013680752018}
AND
CMP NO. 22816 OF 2018
The Oriental Ins Co Ltd
Suba Govindam Building Imperial Road,
Cuddalore,
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. S.Kalaiselvi@selvi
All Are Permanently Residing At O.No.196, N.No.218, Vellazha St., Azhitchikudi, Chidambaram Tk, Now At Sudarsanam St., Manjakuppam Cuddalore Tk.
2. K.Srinivasan
All Are Permanently Residing At O.No.196, N.No.218, Vellazha St., Azhitchikudi, Chidambaram Tk, Now At Sudarsanam St., Manjakuppam Cuddalore Tk.
3. S.Elayaraja
All Are Permanently Residing At O.No.196, N.No.218, Vellazha St., Azhitchikudi, Chidambaram Tk, Now At Sudarsanam St., Manjakuppam Cuddalore Tk.
4. Smalathy
All Are Permanently Residing At O.No.196, N.No.218, Vellazha St., Azhitchikudi, Chidambaram Tk, Now At Sudarsanam St., Manjakuppam Cuddalore Tk.
5. G.Jegannathan
No.2, Cop.Co, Homes Jaswanth Nagar,
CMA No. 3052 of 2018
Mugappair West, Chennai 37, Sankarapuram Tk, Villupuram Dt.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 09th of July, 2018, made in MCOP
No.2320/2014 on the file of the MACT(Principal District Judge), Cuddalore.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.K.Vinod
For Respondent(s):
Mr. A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja for R1 TO R4
R5 ---NA
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 is the appellant before this Court, challenging the Award passed by the Principal District Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Cuddalore, in M.C.O.P. No.2320 of 2014.
2. The brief facts are set out hereinbelow, and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal.
3. The petitioners, who are the parents and siblings of the deceased, S.Muthu @ Muthuvel, filed the above claim petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/-.
CMA No. 3052 of 2018
4. The case of the petitioners is that, on 03.02.2014, at about 08.00 a.m., the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-18-T-1705 on the Puthur-Chennai Road at Chittoor Kadria Village. At that time, a man suddenly crossed the road. In order to avoid hitting the said person, the deceased turned the vehicle, as a result of which the motorcycle capsized and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures all over his body and head. He was immediately taken to the CHC Hospital, Puttur, and thereafter shifted to SVRRGGH Hospital, Tirupati. Subsequently, he was referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, for advanced treatment. However, on the way to CMC Hospital, the said S. Muthu succumbed to his injuries.
5. The petitioners would submit that the accident had arisen out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased. Therefore, they had filed the claim petition under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter inter alia contending that the accident had occurred solely on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. They contended that the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence and that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Since the deceased himself was at fault, the petitioners were not entitled to claim compensation.
CMA No. 3052 of 2018
7. The Tribunal had framed the following points for determination:-
(i) Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s vehicle rider?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation as alleged by them?
(iii) To what other reliefs, the petitioners are entitled?
8. To prove their case, the petitioners examined P.W.1, the 1st petitioner, and P.W.2, an eye-witness, and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1, one Jeganathan, was examined and Ex.R1 was marked.
9. The Tribunal below, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 that the accident had occurred due to the sudden crossing of a man and also considering the contents of the FIR, observed that the accident had occurred when the deceased was riding the 1st respondent's vehicle and, therefore, concluded that the accident had occurred out of and in the course of his employment in the 1st respondent's office. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the 2nd respondent, being the insurer of the 1st respondent's vehicle, was liable to pay the compensation.
10. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/-, added 40% towards future
CMA No. 3052 of 2018
prospects, adopted a multiplier of 18, and deducted 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Ultimately, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.19,85,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the said Award, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
11. The main grievance of the 2nd respondent is that the Tribunal had erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased, particularly when there was no evidence to establish the same.
12. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the evidence of R.W.1, as well as the materials available on record, would clearly establish that the accident had occurred solely on account of the negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred while the deceased was riding the motorcycle in the course of his employment and that the 2nd respondent, being the insurer of the 1st respondent's vehicle, was liable to pay the compensation, is erroneous.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the accident had occurred out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased and, therefore, the claim could be treated as one arising under the
CMA No. 3052 of 2018
Workmen's Compensation Act.
14. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available records.
15. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, Karthikeyan, who claims to be an eye-witness to the accident, would show that, though he claims to have witnessed the accident, he had not lodged the FIR. In his cross-examination, he had stated that the deceased was riding the motorcycle with Jeganathan, the 1st respondent who is the owner of the vehicle, seated as the pillion rider. However, he had merely stated that the accident occurred at about 08.00 a.m. and had not deposed as to the manner in which the accident had occurred.
16. The 1st respondent, who was the pillion rider and the owner of the motorcycle, was examined as R.W.1. In his evidence also, he had not described the manner in which the accident had occurred.
17. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company marked Ex.R1, which is the investigator's report. The Investigator had referred to the statement given before the police. R.W.1 had given a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the police authorities, wherein he had stated that the accident occurred when he and the deceased were returning to Chennai after
CMA No. 3052 of 2018
having Darshan at Tirupati. When they were travelling on the Puthur–Chennai Road at Chittoor Kadria Village, a man suddenly crossed the road. In order to avoid hitting the said person, the deceased suddenly applied the brakes, as a result of which the accident occurred.
18. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred while the deceased and R.W.1 were travelling on the motorcycle and that, in an attempt to avoid hitting a person who had suddenly crossed the road, the deceased applied the brakes, resulting in the accident. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same.
19. The claim petition has been filed seeking compensation by treating the accident as one arising out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased. However, the statement given by R.W.1. under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which forms part of Ex.R1, clearly shows that the deceased and the 1st respondent were returning to Chennai after having Darshan at Tirupati. Such a journey, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed as a journey arising out of and in the course of employment.
20. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred out of and in the course of employment is far-fetched and not supported by any evidence or material on record.
CMA No. 3052 of 2018
21. In fine, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the judgement and decree passed by the Principal District Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Cuddalore in MCOP No.2320 of 2014 dated 09.07.2018 is set aside. No costs.
22. It is informed that the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has deposited the entire Award amount. In view of the judgement and decree passed by the Principal District Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Cuddalore in MCOP No.2320 of 2014 dated 09.07.2018 having been set aside, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the entire Award amount lying to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.2320 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Cuddalore. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 24-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHR To
1. The Principal District Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Cuddalore.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.
CMA No. 3052 of 2018
P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SHR CMA No. 3052 of 2018 AND CMP NO. 22816 OF 2018 24-09-2026
CMA No. 3052 of 2018