CMA/3472/2026 of The Manager Vs Karuppusamy on 13 October 2026

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, in M.C.O.P. No.422 of 2022, both on the ground of liability and quantum of compensation.

2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 29.01.2022, the deceased Revathi, aged about 32 years, who was working as a tailor and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, sustained fatal injuries when a Tata Ace bearing Registration No.TN 42 E 2733, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her while she was standing. She succumbed to the injuries on 01.02.2022. The claimants, being her husband, daughter and son, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for her death, contending that the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.26,73,800/- as compensation, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation, subject to the terms of the award.

4. Challenging the said Award, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant had issued an insurance policy only in respect of a two-wheeler and not in respect of the four-wheeler Tata Ace involved in the accident. It is contended that the policy relied upon by the claimants was not applicable to the offending vehicle and that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the appellant on the basis of the alleged policy. It is further contended that the notional income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.14,000/- per month without adequate documentary proof and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

5. The learned counsel would, however, not seriously dispute the application of the principles governing future prospects and the multiplier, but would contend that the amount fixed towards monthly income requires interference.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. Having regard to the nature of the challenge and the view taken by this Court on the issues raised, notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as no adverse order is proposed to be passed against them.

7. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company and in awarding the compensation in question.

8. As regards negligence, the Tribunal considered the evidence of the claimants and the materials relating to the accident. The evidence of PW1, who spoke about the manner in which the accident occurred, was taken into consideration. The materials placed before the Tribunal, including the First Information Report and the final report, supported the claimants' case regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle and the manner of the accident. The appellant has not placed any independent eyewitness evidence to discredit the evidence relied upon by the Tribunal. In the absence of cogent rebuttal evidence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

9. The next contention relates to the liability of the appellant/Insurance Company. The appellant contends that the policy relied upon by the claimants covered a two-wheeler and not the Tata Ace involved in the accident. However, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of RW1, the witness examined on behalf of the appellant, and the relevant materials relating to the vehicle and its insurance coverage. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by the appellant on the date of the accident. The appellant has not established, by producing cogent documentary evidence, that the policy relied upon by the claimants was fabricated or that the offending vehicle was not covered under the policy in force on the relevant date.

10. A mere contention that the policy related to a different class of vehicle, without satisfactorily substantiating the same by relevant documentary evidence, cannot by itself be sufficient to dislodge the finding recorded by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the finding fastening liability upon the appellant.

11. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/-. Though the claimants had asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, no sufficient documentary evidence was produced to establish the said income. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed her monthly income notionally at Rs.14,000/- The accident occurred on 29.01.2022. Considering the year of the accident, the age of the deceased and her avocation as a tailor, this Court finds that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. On the contrary, the amount fixed is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has also applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, while adding future prospects, and the principles governing the selection of multiplier as laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

12. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency by taking into account the monthly income, future prospects, personal expenses and the appropriate multiplier. On a consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds no perversity or material error in the method of calculation adopted by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The other heads of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have also been considered. No sufficient ground has been made out by the appellant to establish that the total compensation of Rs.26,73,800/- is excessive or contrary to the settled principles governing the award of compensation in motor accident cases.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant. The appellant has failed to establish that the award passed by the Tribunal suffers from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Award dated 12.01.2026 passed in M.C.O.P. No.422 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with M.C.O.P. cases, Tiruppur. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, shall stand closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sts To:

1) The MACT Special District Court, Tiruppur.

2) The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104

M.DHANDAPANI J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. sts Judgment made in C.M.A.No.3472 of 2026 Dated: 13-10-2026