CMA/2279/2021 of R.SANTHI Vs B.JESUDOSS on 2 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) Challenging the dismissal of their claim petition in MCOP.No.6469 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1) Motor Accidents Claims Petitions), Small Causes Court, Chennai, the claimants has filed the above Appeal.

2. The short facts culminating in filing of the above Claim Petition are as follows:-

3. The son of the appellants herein, namely, R. Gowtham, was proceeding towards Poonthandalam Village on 26.02.2017 at about 20:00 hours on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-22-BB-9916. At that time, a car bearing Registration No. TN-20-T-7336, coming from the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased. As a result of the impact, he sustained fatal injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same in the hospital. The appellants herein are the parents of the deceased and the claimants before the Tribunal. It is their contention that their son, who was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident, was working as a Driver with M/s.Vijay Raja Homes Pvt. Ltd., and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.16,159/-. It is their further contention that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent, being the owner of the vehicle, and the second respondent, being its insurer, are vicariously liable to pay compensation. Hence, the appellants/claimants have filed the above Claim Petition seeking a total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. The 1st respondent chose not to contest the claim petition and was set ex parte on 02.01.2018.

5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter inter alia contending that the accident, as narrated in the claim petition, had not taken place. On the contrary, it was their contention that the accident had occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. They therefore put the claimants to strict proof of their contention that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. In their counter, the 2nd respondent denied that the car was insured with them and also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed. They further called upon the claimants to prove that the deceased possessed a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr. K. Subramani, an eyewitness was examined as P.W.2 and Ex. P1 to Ex.P12 were marked. The respondents did not mark any exhibits but examined only R.W.1, Mr.V. Ramanujam, from E3 Sadhurangapattinam Police Station, Chengalpet.

7. The Tribunal below, after hearing both sides and perusing the materials available on record, ultimately came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and dismissed the Claim Petition. Challenging the same, the claimants/appellants are before this Court.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the author of the FIR is none other than the driver of the car and that the accident had been reported only on the next day. She would submit that there had been no further investigation on the part of the police to verify as to who had caused the accident. The police had not even bothered to file a sketch showing the scene of the accident.

9. Per contra, Ms. K. Kumudha, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. She would contend that the deceased had crossed over to the other side of the road and had thereby caused the accident. She would further submit that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident and therefore, he had also contributed to the negligence.

10. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

11. The points for consideration in the above Appeal are:

(i) Whether the claimants have proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's car?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? Point No.1

12. Ex.P.1, the copy of the FIR, would show that the accident had taken place on 26.02.2017 at about 20:00 hours and that the same had been reported on 27.02.2017 at about 6:00 hours. The complainant is one Ms. Viji. Her version of the accident was that, while she was returning home, travelling on the East Coast Road towards Chennai, at about 8:00 p.m., when she neared Poonthandalam Village two-way road, a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-20-T-7336, coming from the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road, in a rash and negligent manner, hit her vehicle. She would submit that both the vehicles were damaged in the accident. Thereafter, the injured person was taken to the Chengalpattu Government Hospital by ambulance. She would further submit that she subsequently came to know that the said person had died and, on enquiry, came to know the details of the deceased.

13. Ex.P.2, the Post-Mortem Certificate, would show that at about 01.00 p.m. on 27.02.2017, a requisition had been given by the Inspector of Police, Sadras Police Station, requesting post-mortem to be conducted on the body of a male aged about 25 years, namely, Gowtham. Though the police had brought the body for post-mortem at 1.00 p.m., there is no explanation as to why there had been no further investigation. As per the evidence of R.W.1, the only document available in the file is the FIR lodged by the driver of the car.

14. P.W.2, the eyewitness, had deposed to the fact that the accident had occurred at a place where there was a narrow bridge through which only one vehicle could pass. He had clearly deposed in his cross-examination that the two-wheeler had crossed the bridge and that the car, coming in the opposite direction, without noticing the two-wheeler, had caused the accident when it neared the bridge. He had also deposed to the fact that the police had questioned him and that he had signed the document. However, the statement of this witness had not been produced by the police and the same had not been refuted in the cross-examination of R.W.1.

15. It is not known as to why the police authorities had not deemed it fit to treat the evidence of P.W.2 as the basis for the FIR and prepare a sketch showing the scene of the accident. The evidence of P.W.2 would clearly show that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the car and the FIR, which had been lodged on the basis of the complaint given by the driver of the car, is an interested evidence lodged by the person who has, as per the evidence of PW.2, caused the accident.

16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent vehemently contended that contributory negligence has to be mulcted on the deceased, as he was not wearing a helmet at the time of accident. However, this defence had not been taken by them in their counter nor had the same been elicited in evidence. Further, the insurance company has not examined the said Ms.Viji who has lodged the FIR. Therefore, the first point for consideration is answered in favour of the claimants.

17. As the first point for consideration is decided in favour of the claimants, the claimants are entitled to compensation. The 2nd respondent, being the insurer of the offending car, is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The quantum of compensation payable to the claimants is dealt with in the subsequent paragraphs.

Point No.2

18. Ex.P.8 is the salary pay slip of the deceased. There was no objection to the marking of the said document. The said document would show that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.15,258/-. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the monthly income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.15,000/-. To the said income, considering the age and the nature of employment of the deceased, 40% is added towards future prospects, which works out to a sum of Rs.6,000/-. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be a sum of Rs.21,000/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents of the deceased, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Thus, the monthly contribution to the family would be a sum of Rs.10,500/-. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier is 18. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs.10,500/- × 12 × 18 = Rs.22,68,000/-. In addition to this, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is computed as follows:-

Sl. No. Head of Compensation Amount

1. Loss of dependency Rs.22,68,000/-

2. Loss of love and affection Rs.80,000/-

3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-

4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.23,78,000/- Point No.2 answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the judgement and decree dated 24.01.2020 passed in MCOP.No.6469 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1) Motor Accidents Claims Petitions), Small Causes Court, Chennai is set aside. A sum of Rs.23,78,000/- is awarded as compensation to the appellants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellants, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to an equal proportion of the compensation awarded by this Court. The appellants are directed to pay necessary Court fee, if any on the compensation awarded by this Court. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court (ie. Rs.23,78,000/-), along with interest to the credit of MCOP.No.6469 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

(Special Sub Court No.1) Motor Accidents Claims Petitions), Small Causes Court, Chennai, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount now determined by this Court, along with proportionate interest. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 02-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHR To

1. The MACT/ Special Sub Court No.1, MACT, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

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

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SHR CMA No. 2279 of 2021 02-09-2026