CMA/2382/2022 of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Chitra on 9 September 2026

Common Judgment

(Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Mala J.)

The Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent in MCOP.No.1545/2017, has filed the appeal in CMA.No.2382/2022 challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.05.2022, of the Claims Tribunal, Namakkal, questioning the findings of the Claims Tribunal, on negligence and quantum of compensation. So also, the claimants have filed CMA.No.2930/2022, questioning the findings of the Claims Tribunal on negligence and seeking enhancement of compensation.

Since both the appeals arise out of one and same judgment, they are taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in CMA.No.2382/2022.

Facts in brief: The respondents 1 to 3 filed the claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.55 lakhs, for the death of one Subramani, in a motor accident which took place, on 30.06.2017. According to the respondents 1 to 3, while the deceased Subramani, was riding the Honda Activa motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-88-B-3574, on Mohanur to Namakkal Main Road in South-North direction, the driver of TVS Apache motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-28-BB-3430, drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceaesd's motorcycle from behind and caused his death. Since the said Subramani died in the accident, the respondents 1 to 3, his legal heirs, filed the claim petition seeking Rs.55 lakhs as compensation. According to the respondents 1 to 3, the deceased was aged 49 years, at the time of the accident, working as a Civil contractor and doing agriculture and earning Rs.80,000/- per month.

The owner of the TVS Apache Motorcycle remained exparte before the Claims Tribunal. The claim petition was contested by the appellant. The appellant in its counter, denied the manner of accident, negligence, liability and the quantum of compensation claimed.

Before the Claims Tribunal, respondents 1 to 3 examined three witnesses and marked 16 documents. On the side of the appellant, one witness was examined and 3 documents were marked.

The Claims Tribunal, on an assessment of the evidence on record, found that the deceased contributed to the accident by not wearing a helmet, more so, when he died of head injuries. The Claims Tribunal therefore apportioned the negligence at 15% on the deceased and 85% on the appellant. The Tribunal further found that there was a valid subsisting policy on the date of the accident and therefore, held that the appellant was bound to pay the compensation. On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record, found that the respondents 1 to 3, were entitled to a total compensation of Rs.56,52,882/-.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal having held that the deceased was not wearing a helmet, ought to have increased the apportionment of negligence of the deceased. The learned counsel submitted that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency and other heads, were excessive and speculative and therefore, called for interference.

The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal erred in apportioning 15% of the negligence against the deceased for not wearing helmet, when it found that the accident occurred wholly due to the negligence of the driver of the TVS Apache bike. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.60,000/- towards loss of love and affection for the respondents 2 and 3.

We have heard the learned counsels on both side and also perused the materials placed before us.

We find that the Claims Tribunal, on an assessment of the entire evidence on record, rightly found that the negligence of the rider of the TVS Apache bike, caused the accident. However, since the deceased was not wearing helmet and died of head injuries, the Tribunal though fit to conclude that the deceased contributed to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal apportioned negligence in the ratio 85 : 15 against the rider of TVS Apache bike and the deceased respectively. In our view, for non- wearing of the helmet, the apportionment of contributory negligence at 15%, is on the higher side and hence, the same is reduced to 10%.

We further find that the Tribunal awarded only 60,000/- towards loss of love and affection to respondents 2 and 3. As per the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited, Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 : 2017 (16) SCC 680, the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, the Award of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to loss of dependency and loss of love and affection for respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, is interfered with.

Loss of Dependency:-

Notional annual income fixed by the Tribunal - Rs.5,08,563/- Less 1/3rd of income towards personal expenses - Rs.1,69,521/- --------------------- Rs.3,39,042/- Applying the multiplier ‘13’, total income is [Rs.3,39,042 x 13] - Rs.44,07,546/-

Loss of Love and Affection for Respondents 2 and 3:-

Rs.40,000/- is awarded to each of the respondents 2 and 3-Rs.80,000/-

Accordingly, the Award of the Tribunal, is modified as follows:- Sl.No. Conventional Heads Amount Awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Amount Awarded by this Court in Rs.

Loss of Dependency 44,07,546/- 44,07,546/-

Future Prospects 11,01,886/- 11,01,886/-

Loss of consortium 40,000/- 40,000/-

Loss of love & affection 60,000/- 80,000/-

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-

Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/-

Medical Expenses 13,450/- 13,450/- Total 56,52,882/- 56,72,882/- Less Contributory negligence 56,52,882 – 15% = 48,04,949/- 56,72,882 – 10% = 51,05,593.80p

The appellant shall deposit the modified Award amount of Rs.51,05,594/- [rounded off] [Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Five Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four only], along with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the web copy of the order, if not already deposited. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3 shall be entitled to withdraw the same along with the proportionate accrued interest, as per the apportionment directed by the Claims Tribunal, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.

In the result, CMA.No.2382/2022 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and CMA.No.2930/2022 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 09-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To

1. The Presiding Officer/MACT/Sessions [Fast Track] Mahila Judge, Namakkal [FAC], Namakkal.

2. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., No.5-G, 3rd Floor, Bus Plaza, Lowson Road Cantonment, Trichy 620 001.

3. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Chennai.

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. AP CMA No. 2382 of 2022 AND CMA NO. 2930 OF 2022 09-09-2026