CMA/3504/2026 of The Divisional manager Vs Vijayarani on 13 October 2026

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2025 passed in M.C.O.P. No.10 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court No.I, Cuddalore.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants filed a claim petition alleging that on 25.08.2021, one Singaravelu, while riding a bicycle, came into contact with a live electrical wire and was electrocuted. On witnessing the incident, the deceased Aravinthan attempted to rescue Singaravelu and in the process, was also electrocuted. Thus, two persons lost their lives in the incident. The specific case of the claimants is that the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 45 BQ 1602, owned by the ninth respondent and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company was driven in a rash and negligent manner, came into contact with the electrical wire, causing it to snap and resulting in the electrocution of both persons.

3. The Tribunal, without sufficient evidence, had fixed the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company, primarily relying upon Ex.P1. The learned counsel would further submit that the First Information Report, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of negligence or involvement of the insured vehicle. Even assuming that the accident had occurred in the manner alleged, the same was attributable to the improper maintenance of the electrical wire by the tenth and eleventh respondents. However, without fixing any liability on the electricity authorities, the Tribunal had erroneously fastened the entire liability on the insured vehicle.

4. It is further contended that the deceased was a bachelor and the Tribunal had fixed his notional income at Rs.17,000/- per month, which is on the higher side. The Tribunal had also awarded compensation towards loss of love and affection to eight persons, including the brothers and sisters of the deceased, though the legal heir certificate had been produced only in respect of his parents. Hence, the learned counsel seeks interference with the award passed by the Tribunal.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as no adverse order is proposed to be passed against them.

6. The principal contention raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal had erred in fastening the liability on the insured vehicle without sufficient evidence to establish its involvement in the accident. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 25.08.2021, resulting in the death of Aravinthan due to electrocution. The case of the claimants is that the lorry, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came into contact with a live electrical wire, causing it to snap and fall, resulting in the electrocution of the deceased. The appellant disputes the involvement of the insured vehicle and contends that the accident was attributable to the improper maintenance of the electrical wire by the electricity authorities.

7. In order to substantiate its contention, the appellant examined the driver of the insured vehicle as RW1. However, RW1 is the driver of the vehicle whose involvement is in question, and his evidence has to be assessed in the light of the other materials available on record. In his cross-examination, he admitted that a criminal case in connection with the incident was pending before the criminal court. On the other hand, the claimants examined PW2 as an eyewitness to establish the manner in which the accident had occurred. No other independent witness was examined on behalf of the appellant or the ninth respondent to disprove the evidence adduced by the claimants regarding the involvement of the insured vehicle.

8. The mere registration of an FIR cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of negligence. However, the evidence adduced before the Tribunal has to be considered cumulatively, keeping in view the standard of proof applicable to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the present case, the evidence of PW2, read along with the other materials on record, has been relied upon by the Tribunal to arrive at the conclusion that the accident occurred in the manner alleged by the claimants. The appellant has not placed sufficient independent evidence to dislodge the said finding. The contention that the accident was solely attributable to the improper maintenance of the electrical wire by the tenth and eleventh respondents, in the absence of sufficient evidence to substantiate the same, cannot be accepted as a ground to set aside the finding of the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the finding of negligence and the consequent fastening of liability on the insured vehicle.

9. The next contention of the appellant relates to the fixation of the notional income of the deceased at Rs.17,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, fixed the monthly income at Rs.17,000/-, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses, and applied the multiplier of 17. Accordingly, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.24,27,600/- towards loss of dependency. On consideration of the materials placed before the Tribunal and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the assessment made by the Tribunal.

10. The appellant has also challenged the award of Rs.3,52,000/- towards loss of love and affection to eight claimants, contending that the legal heir certificate reflects only the parents of the deceased as his legal heirs. However, the claim for compensation under the appropriate heads has to be considered in accordance with the applicable principles of law and the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. On an overall consideration of the award and the grounds raised by the appellant, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. The other amounts awarded towards funeral expenses, transportation expenses and loss of estate also do not warrant interference in the present appeal.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant/Insurance Company warranting interference with the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2025 passed in M.C.O.P. No.10 of 2023

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court No.I, Cuddalore. 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Spl. District Court No.I, Cuddalore.

2. The Superintendent Officer, Superintendent office of TNEB, Nagapattinam

3. The Assistant Engineering, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Thenpathi

4. 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.3504 of 2026 Dated: 13-10-2026