CMA/858/2023 of RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs MOGHANASUNDARI on 9 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The Insurance Company has filed the above appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.6622 of 2018. Parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal.

2. The facts are herein below set out :

(a) The first claimant is the wife of deceased Raji and second and third claimants are his daughters.

(b) It is the case of the claimants that on 24.05.2018 at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased Raji was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN04 AP 5891, and while he was proceeding from Maduravoyal towards Puzhal Bye-pass Road, the accident took place at Kallikuppam Service Road in front of MVM Auto Works, Chennai, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN22 DF 2481, belonging to the first respondent

( Uploaded on: 16/09/2026 07:16:09 pm )

CMA No. 858 of 2023

and insured with the second respondent, had stopped the lorry in the middle of the road without any proper indication or signal, and as a result, the deceased Raji dashed into the rear of the lorry and was thrown from his motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries.

(c) The deceased was taken to hospital immediately and was under treatment from 24.05.2018 to 28.05.2018, but unfortunately, he died on 28.05.2018.

(d) The claimants claimed that the driver of the lorry had been negligent and responsible for the death of Raji. Therefore, they claimed that the first respondent who is the owner of the lorry and the second respondent, its insurer are liable to pay the compensation.

(e) Claiming compensation for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. they filed MCOP.No.6622/2018 before the MACT.

(f) The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent-Insurance Company had filed a counter inter alia contending the nature of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased and thereby they disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioners/claimants.

(g) The first claimant, the wife of the deceased has examined herself as P.W.2, the employer of Raji as P.W.2 and one Ravi, an eyewitness to accident as P.W.3. They marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P22. The respondents had neither examined the witnesses nor filed the documentary evidence.

(h) The Tribunal had held that the accident had occurred on account of the

( Uploaded on: 16/09/2026 07:16:09 pm )

CMA No. 858 of 2023

negligence of the driver of the lorry and that the claimants were entitled to claim compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.28,81,092/- as compensation.

(i) Ext.P15 is the copy of Bank Pass Book of the deceased Raji and Ext.P19 are the salary slips of the deceased Raji. The Tribunal by relying on Ext.P15 and Ext.P19, had fixed the salary of the deceased as Rs.20,200/- per month. The Tribunal, taking into account the age of the deceased who was 46 years and 6 months at that relevant time of accident, had added 30% towards his future prospects (Rs.26,060/-) and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, and applying a multiplier of 13, it arrived at a sum of Rs.27,31,092/- towards loss of dependency. To this, it added Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Estate, Rs.1,20,000/- towards Loss of Consortium (at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each for three dependants) and Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and arrived at a total award sum of Rs.28,81,092/- as compensation. It is challenging this award, the Insurance Company is before this Court.

3. The primary argument put forward by the counsel for the Insurance Company is that the first respondent's vehicle was parked on the road and it was the deceased who came in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against the parked lorry and therefore, he alone is responsible for the accident. Further, he had also questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

( Uploaded on: 16/09/2026 07:16:09 pm )

CMA No. 858 of 2023

4. It has not been denied that the first respondent's lorry was parked in the middle of the road and the accident had occurred at 6.45p.m., There is no evidence to show that the driver of the first respondent's lorry has taken necessary precautions to indicate that there was a vehicle parked with indicators or signal as mandated. Further, the evidence of P.W.3, eyewitness corroborates the contention contained in the FIR, Ext.P1 and the final report Ext.P22 which clearly points to the negligence of the driver of the first respondent. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be assailed. With reference to quantum as well, the evidence has been let in to show that the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs.20,200/- as evidenced by Ext.P15 and Ext.P19. Hence, on this count also, the award cannot be called into question.

5. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, 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 DS

( Uploaded on: 16/09/2026 07:16:09 pm )

CMA No. 858 of 2023

To:

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chief Judge, Small Causes Court Chennai.

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

( Uploaded on: 16/09/2026 07:16:09 pm )

CMA No. 858 of 2023

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. DS CMA No. 858 of 2023 and CMP No. 7921 of 2023 09-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 16/09/2026 07:16:09 pm )