CMA/3065/2026 of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Jamuna on 9 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The 2nd respondent/insurance company, challenging the Award passed by the MACT Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MCOP.No.2528 of 2019, dated 08.04.2025, is the appellant before this Court.

2. The facts, in brief, are set out hereinbelow, and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. MCOP.No.2528 of 2019 has been filed by the mother and sister of one Selvaprakash, who died in an accident on 26.02.2019. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Selvaprakash was travelling in a Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire Tour Car bearing Registration No.TN 85 D 5502 from Elagiri to Mugalivakkam on 26.02.2019. At about 01:15 p.m when they were opposite Chennakesavar Field near Kalandhira Village, on the Tirupathur–Vaniyambadi Road, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit a tamarind tree on the left side of the road. As a result, the said Selvaprakash and two other persons travelling in the car died on the spot.

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 05:45:01 pm )

CMA No. 3065 of 2026

4. The petitioners would submit that the deceased was aged about 26 years and was working as a car driver, earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, they sought compensation of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents, as the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending car and the 2nd respondent is its insurer.

5. The 1st respondent died pending the proceedings and there is nothing on record to show that his legal representatives were brought on record.

6. The 2nd respondent contested the claim petition by contending that the driver of the car was under the influence of alcohol and was charge sheeted under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Considering the fact that the driver had violated the conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the 2nd respondent contended that it must be exonerated from paying the compensation.

7. The 2nd respondent had also contended that the petitioners had not proved their legal relationship with the deceased and the age, avocation and income of the deceased. Since there was a violation of the policy conditions, the 2nd respondent contended that it was not liable to compensate the petitioners.

8. This claim petition was tried along with another claim petition, namely, MCOP.No.2798 of 2019. Before the Tribunal, the 1st petitioner in

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 05:45:01 pm )

CMA No. 3065 of 2026

MCOP.No.2528 of 2019 examined herself as P.W.1, the 1st petitioner in MCOP.No.2798 of 2019 examined herself as P.W.2, and one Ramesh, who was an eyewitness, was examined as P.W.3. On the side of the petitioners, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32 were marked. On the side of the respondents, the official of the 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked.

9. The Tribunal below, on considering the evidence available on record, held that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s vehicle and that the respondents were liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

10. As regards the petitioners in MCOP.No.2528 of 2019, the Tribunal arrived at a notional income of Rs.14,108.53/- per month, since the claimants had not let in any evidence to show that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as a driver. To this, 40% was added towards future prospects and applying a multiplier of 17, the Tribunal ultimately awarded a sum of Rs.20,13,480/- under the head of loss of income/dependency. To this, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges were added, and ultimately, a sum of Rs.21,33,500/- was awarded to the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioner/insurance company is before this Court.

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 05:45:01 pm )

CMA No. 3065 of 2026

11. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records.

12. The only ground on which the Award is challenged is that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car and therefore, the owner of the car alone is liable to compensate the petitioners.

13. It is seen that the Tribunal below has observed that the deceased were not responsible for the accident. The Tribunal below had also found that the contention of the insurance company that the driver of the car was under the influence of alcohol had not been proved by them. Therefore, the said defence was not accepted by the Tribunal below.

14. The deceased were passengers and third parties. Therefore, they are entitled to compensation, and the finding of the Tribunal below that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle has to be upheld. The Tribunal below has fixed a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month as the notional income of the deceased and calculated the compensation on the said basis. The quantum awarded also appears to be in order. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal.

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 05:45:01 pm )

CMA No. 3065 of 2026

15. In fine, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the orders of the Claims Tribunal dated 08.04.2025, made in MCOP.No.2528/2019, is confirmed. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the Award amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. 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 SHR To

1. The MACT Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court Madras.

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 05:45:01 pm )

CMA No. 3065 of 2026

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SHR CMA No. 3065 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 23667 OF 2026 09-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 05:45:01 pm )

CMA No. 3065 of 2026

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 05:45:01 pm )